Corbyn

[FootballFan]

Cameron has a semi on for bombing, it's all he wants, anyone would think that those attacks in Paris were exactly what he wanted. I was wondering how far our boundaries for grief extend to. France, we played the national anthem at all games, I reckon we would have done it if the attacks happened in Germany. Spain maybe but we didn't after the Madrid bombing, Norway we didn't after Anders Breivik's outrage, the rest of Europe I don't think we'd have bothered. The Russian plane brought down by a bomb, like Lockerbie yet it's hardly mentioned.

excellent points, agree with them all.

But I am not just telling you I am right. Many people are giving you multiple reasons for why you are wrong and you are just ignoring them. You will not acknowledge the mess Labour is in. You still seem to be convinced that Labour are doing fine, better in fact than when Miliband was running the show. At best you are revealing that you have no interest in Labour being a party that attracts a level of votes that will return a respectable number of seat in a general election, and that the current disaster is actually great new for Labour.

I have had a fundamental problem with Labour's long term pre-Corbyn tendancy to try to appeal to whatever group will give them the votes they need to win elections by painting them as deprived people needing help. Since at least the start of the Blair era their modus operandi has been to point at groups that are actually doing quite well out of the state and the country and to say to them "You are prejudiced against, you are having money taken from you, you are lacking opportunities because of society". They created imaginary problems and imaginary bad guys causing the imaginary problems. The apex of this approach was the last general election where the mainstream public saw through this ruse and it cost Labour massively. The cry wolf tactics alienated a lot of people because they could see the benefits of the Coalition, yet Miliband was there blathering on about how many had supposedly been treated abysmally. In turn he was crafting the new support for the Labour party. He was chasing away the more reasonable people in the middle ground, and attracting the deluded who actually believed his cry wolf stories. When it came to asking them who they wanted to be the new leader, it is no suprise that they rejected the most moderate candidates. Miliband spent his election crying wolf, and he kept all of the folk who did not walk away shaking their head.

For me, Corbyn makes a few good points, but where he does make good points they are generally lost by his complete inability to engage in a meaningful way with his own party, his inability or fear to place competent speakers in to the key roles, and his inability to allow anyone closely associated with basic competence to do the shadow jobs he has appointed them to. I would dearly have liked Corbyn to have been able to force more parliamentary debate and further revisions of the plans for Syria because I think what is proposed is being done on the back of the Paris attacks in the hope that the emotive aspect will push it through. However, he has demonstrated idiotic handling of his own party, and a basic lack of respect for his MPs and their opinions, and has turned a potential position of strength into a position of weakness purely through a lack of basic tact and diplomacy. That is one thing when you are the leader of the Labour Party. It is entirely another when you are the Leader of the Opposition and your role is to hold to account the ruling government. If he had been able to treat his party with some respect, he probably would have been able to force the Conservatives to come back for more debate and at the very least more checks and balances could have been put in place. As it stands, after Corbyn made such a mess and yet again annoyed so many of his own MPs, I would not be suprised if a Parliamentary vote on the proposition comes swiftly after Monday's PLP meeting, when Cameron will probably expect the Labour MPs to be at their angriest.

you were talking to someone else mate, but after this essay my point still stands.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

The PLP want someone like them. The issue is that they are somewhat removed from the bulk of the membership. Moving forward, the question is: is there anyone in the PLP with a foot in both camps who can bridge the divide? If not, Corbyn's successor will be another used car salesman who stands for nothing.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...aceless-enemy-leaving-isis-free-a6751871.html

The Labour Party has stood for nothing for at least 15 years. I hope that this is the end of the party because I think that there is no place for a party that continually works to divide people and lives off of claiming disadvantages that do not exist. I think the Corbyn disaster is the final stages in the cry wolf policy. However the impact on our democracy is a problem, as he is giving the Government close to a free hand, as he simply does not have the wherewithal to actually put together a credible response to any propositions he does not support.

excellent points, agree with them all.



you were talking to someone else mate, but after this essay my point still stands.

No I was talking to you and anybody else interested in reading. It is up to you if you read it or not.

 

[smoker]

The PLP want someone like them. The issue is that they are somewhat removed from the bulk of the membership. Moving forward, the question is: is there anyone in the PLP with a foot in both camps who can bridge the divide? If not, Corbyn's successor will be another used car salesman who stands for nothing.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...aceless-enemy-leaving-isis-free-a6751871.html

Opinion piece.

 

[FootballFan]

The Labour Party has stood for nothing for at least 15 years. I hope that this is the end of the party because I think that there is no place for a party that continually works to divide people and lives off of claiming disadvantages that do not exist. I think the Corbyn disaster is the final stages in the cry wolf policy. However the impact on our democracy is a problem, as he is giving the Government close to a free hand, as he simply does not have the wherewithal to actually put together a credible response to any propositions he does not support.


No I was talking to you and anybody else interested in reading. It is up to you if you read it or not.

No you were talking with someone else and in your essay assigned their views to me. Dont lie to people about what I think in future and be more careful in your posts.

 

[redandwhiterob]

No you were talking with someone else and in your essay assigned their views to me. Dont lie to people about what I think in future and be more careful in your posts.

I honestly think your aim on here is just to see what utter drivel you can get awsy with talking. Really can't belive someone can be that thick

 

[smoker]

a party that continually works to divide people and lives off of claiming disadvantages that do not exist.

Perfect summary. I had some sympathy for Labour under Kinnock, Smith and Blair (pre-2003). They are like truthers these days

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

No you were talking with someone else and in your essay assigned their views to me. Dont lie to people about what I think in future and be more careful in your posts.

No I was talking to you, and I was not assigning any views to you. You seem to be getting a bit riled up, calling me a fanny and now trying to claim I am putting words in your mouth when I clearly am not. Is the reality of the Corbyn disaster starting to sink in?

 

[FootballFan]

I honestly think your aim on here is just to see what utter drivel you can get awsy with talking. Really can't belive someone can be that thick

what the hell? lad was out of order, read in future

No I was talking to you, and I was not assigning any views to you. You seem to be getting a bit riled up, calling me a fanny and now trying to claim I am putting words in your mouth when I clearly am not. Is the reality of the Corbyn disaster starting to sink in?

"You will not acknowledge the mess Labour is in. You still seem to be convinced that Labour are doing fine, better in fact than when Miliband was running the show. "

You were talking to another poster mate, no point going on about it.

 

[Randy Ostrich]

The Labour Party has stood for nothing for at least 15 years. I hope that this is the end of the party because I think that there is no place for a party that continually works to divide people and lives off of claiming disadvantages that do not exist. I think the Corbyn disaster is the final stages in the cry wolf policy. However the impact on our democracy is a problem, as he is giving the Government close to a free hand, as he simply does not have the wherewithal to actually put together a credible response to any propositions he does not support.


No I was talking to you and anybody else interested in reading. It is up to you if you read it or not.

That's all the Tories have done

Workers and shirkers, benefits cap, public vs private, immigrants and health tourists... Everything they do is about divide and conquer politics. You're going to work while your neighbour's curtains are drawn, they're on 26k benefits while you're on minimum wage, you've had a wage freeze while your public sector counterpart has a gold plated pension.

I'm astounded you can't see this.

Opinion piece.

So? When it comes to Syria, all we have are opinions as facts are thin on the ground. Of course the government prefers it that way.

Perfect summary. I had some sympathy for Labour under Kinnock, Smith and Blair (pre-2003). They are like truthers these days

If you think that's a perfect summary you must've had a very uncomfortable time in the coalition years

 

[Boz33]

Neither Corbyn or Watson have a mandate from the party on bombing Syria because the members have never voted on it. Corbyn does have a massive mandate from the members to reshape the party based upon the policies in his election campaign.

The way you appeal to voters is by convincing them that you have polices that will work. For the last six years the Labour party have been unable to do that because they have had the exact same policies as the Tory party. The sooner the party start focusing on actual policies and attacking the incompetence of the government the better.

He's got a mandate from 250k of Labour Party members....this is a huge difference from having a mandate from labour voters. Personally speaking I've always voted labour, but I could actually see myself not voting if Corbyn was the labour choice as I think him and the people he's gathered round him such as Abbott and McDonnell and people of that ilk are so barmy they'd fook anything up if actually given any sort of responsibility.
As for focusing on policies and attacking the incompetence of the Tories, last week was a golden opportunity, yet it was absolutely blown, because of incompetence on McDonnells behalf, would you really like to see him as chancellor?
Another thing that got my goat last week was the lifting of the suspension of Andrew fisher (an advisor to Corbyn)...this is a bloke who was actively telling labour supporters to vote against the labour candidate. Yet the nec lets him back in with hardly a slap on the wrist? How the fook can that be right

 

[smoker]

That's all the Tories have done

Workers and shirkers, benefits cap, public vs private, immigrants and health tourists... Everything they do is about divide and conquer politics. You're going to work while your neighbour's curtains are drawn, they're on 26k benefits while you're on minimum wage, you've had a wage freeze while your public sector counterpart has a gold plated pension.

I'm astounded you can't see this.




So? When it comes to Syria, all we have are opinions as facts are thin on the ground. Of course the government prefers it that way.


If you think that's a perfect summary you must've had a very uncomfortable time in the coalition years

I posted my link in reply to a specific question about Cameron's strategy, as it included a prediction of what that would be.

You posted a hand wringing opinion piece from the CEO of Fair trade international.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

Perfect summary. I had some sympathy for Labour under Kinnock, Smith and Blair (pre-2003). They are like truthers these days

The UK and probably the world does not know how much it missed out on when Labour lost John Smith. He was a statesman in the making. I think the country would have been vastly different if he had made it to power rather than Blair. I personally never liked Blair, and it is hard to find benefits that extend beyond 1998. I think he moderated some of the features of the Conservative period in power that needed moderating, and then went on the rampage with what equated to a pyramid scheme of dividing and conquering Britain's society.

On the day Labour came to power in 1997, the school I was at was one of them most integrated in the country. Races freely mixed, disabled kids mixed freely with able bodied kids. Race and disability were pretty much transparent to us. A couple of years when I had left and was at university, I needed to pop into that school to pick up some stuff I had lent them. Since the last time had been there, a lady who was an old friend of Tony Blair's was made head mistress. Suddenly all the black kids, all the Jewish kids, all the Indian kids, all the Pakistani kids and every other supposed minority, were all in separate groups. What is more, there were suddenly vastly more Jewish kids than there ever was before. It is only just after 2pm, but all the kids are heading home. I ask a kid why they are going home so early and he says "We all have to go home at 2pm on a Friday now, because of some Jewish thing..."

For me it typified the whole Blair ethos. There is a consistent main chunk of voters. By accommodating those in the margins, and encouraging them to think they are in the margins, and that by being in the margins they are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and that Labour will always fight for their interests, they obtain their loyalty. You then also have to convince those in the main chunk of the vote that those in margins are disadvantaged, and that supporting them is their moral duty. Soon the margins are actually comparable in number with the main chunk of the vote. In the case of Blair's Labour this very swiftly matured into hypocrisy on a massive scale, as they ignored sex gangs, drug dealing, sexual discrimination, mass tribal violence and other problems perpetrated from the margins, yet tried to enforce an unrealistic and unequal interpretation of equality on everybody else.

"You will not acknowledge the mess Labour is in. You still seem to be convinced that Labour are doing fine, better in fact than when Miliband was running the show. "

You were talking to another poster mate, no point going on about it.

Ok, to clarify, I was talking to you, and do you think Labour are in a mess under Corbyn, yes or no?

 

[Randy Ostrich]

I posted my link in reply to a specific question about Cameron's strategy, as it included a prediction of what that would be.

You posted a hand wringing opinion piece from the CEO of Fair trade international.

I didn't actually see anything about the post-conflict picture, unless I missed it?

The UK and probably the world does not know how much it missed out on when Labour lost John Smith. He was a statesman in the making. I think the country would have been vastly different if he had made it to power rather than Blair. I personally never liked Blair, and it is hard to find benefits that extend beyond 1998. I think he moderated some of the features of the Conservative period in power that needed moderating, and then went on the rampage with what equated to a pyramid scheme of dividing and conquering Britain's society.

On the day Labour came to power in 1997, the school I was at was one of them most integrated in the country. Races freely mixed, disabled kids mixed freely with able bodied kids. Race and disability were pretty much transparent to us. A couple of years when I had left and was at university, I needed to pop into that school to pick up some stuff I had lent them. Since the last time had been there, a lady who was an old friend of Tony Blair's was made head mistress. Suddenly all the black kids, all the Jewish kids, all the Indian kids, all the Pakistani kids and every other supposed minority, were all in separate groups. What is more, there were suddenly vastly more Jewish kids than there ever was before. It is only just after 2pm, but all the kids are heading home. I ask a kid why they are going home so early and he says "We all have to go home at 2pm on a Friday now, because of some Jewish thing..."

For me it typified the whole Blair ethos. There is a consistent main chunk of voters. By accommodating those in the margins, and encouraging them to think they are in the margins, and that by being in the margins they are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and that Labour will always fight for their interests, they obtain their loyalty. You then also have to convince those in the main chunk of the vote that those in margins are disadvantaged, and that supporting them is their moral duty. Soon the margins are actually comparable in number with the main chunk of the vote. In the case of Blair's Labour this very swiftly matured into hypocrisy on a massive scale, as they ignored sex gangs, drug dealing, sexual discrimination, mass tribal violence and other problems perpetrated from the margins, yet tried to enforce an unrealistic and unequal interpretation of equality on everybody else.



Ok, to clarify, I was talking to you, and do you think Labour are in a mess under Corbyn, yes or no?

Any response to the point that the Tories' entire strategy is divide and conquer?

 

[smoker]

That's all the Tories have done

Workers and shirkers, benefits cap, public vs private, immigrants and health tourists... Everything they do is about divide and conquer politics. You're going to work while your neighbour's curtains are drawn, they're on 26k benefits while you're on minimum wage, you've had a wage freeze while your public sector counterpart has a gold plated pension.

I'm astounded you can't see this.




So? When it comes to Syria, all we have are opinions as facts are thin on the ground. Of course the government prefers it that way.


If you think that's a perfect summary you must've had a very uncomfortable time in the coalition years

I thought the Coalition was one of the better governments in my lifetime. Considering the economic mess they had to contend with, they did a reasonable job turning the ship around. Obviously bitterly angry at the Tories sabotaging Lords and voting reform. Meanwhile Labour spent five years exaggerating the fuck out of every policy and cooking up figures on foodbanks which did them little credit in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 29721]

He's got a mandate from 250k of Labour Party members....this is a huge difference from having a mandate from labour voters. Personally speaking I've always voted labour, but I could actually see myself not voting if Corbyn was the labour choice as I think him and the people he's gathered round him such as Abbott and McDonnell and people of that ilk are so barmy they'd fook anything up if actually given any sort of responsibility.

Mandate from labour voters? Why would he need a mandate from labour voters? That happens at election time and the right of the party have failed at the last two general elections. Party Members decide on policy, they are the only ones that matter when it comes to deciding on which policies they want to offer the country.

As for focusing on policies and attacking the incompetence of the Tories, last week was a golden opportunity, yet it was absolutely blown, because of incompetence on McDonnells behalf, would you really like to see him as chancellor?

Rather him than Osborne. As I mentioned earlier when this question was raised, I'm very happy with the economic advisers Corbyn has brought on board.

Another thing that got my goat last week was the lifting of the suspension of Andrew fisher (an advisor to Corbyn)...this is a bloke who was actively telling labour supporters to vote against the labour candidate. Yet the nec lets him back in with hardly a slap on the wrist? How the fook can that be right

Fisher was attacked because of his position supporting Corbyn, that is the only reason for the NEC enquiry, other wise they would have done it months ago. Perhaps you would like the NEC to move against Danczuck and Frank Field for their recent comments?

 

[smoker]

they have had the exact same policies as the Tory party.

Ridiculous claim.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

Another thing that got my goat last week was the lifting of the suspension of Andrew fisher (an advisor to Corbyn)...this is a bloke who was actively telling labour supporters to vote against the labour candidate. Yet the nec lets him back in with hardly a slap on the wrist? How the fook can that be right

Was Fisher not telling them to vote against Emily Benn? My understanding is that only in the last couple of weeks Corbyn's henchmen sent a standard letter around asking for the suspension of Emily Benn (along with two other of Corbyn's critics) on a trumped up charge that she supported another party against Labour. It is clear how things are going.

 

[alzeebub]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...irstrikes-against-isis-in-syria-a6749316.html

The man is a f***ing idiot and clearly thinks the British public are too. He might be right.

Does anyone here actually believe that bombing syria will stop terrorism in Britain?

 

[Deleted member 29721]

I thought the Coalition was one of the better governments in my lifetime. Considering the economic mess they had to contend with, they did a reasonable job turning the ship around. Obviously bitterly angry at the Tories sabotaging Lords and voting reform. Meanwhile Labour spent five years exaggerating the fuck out of every policy and cooking up figures on foodbanks which did them little credit in my opinion.

Yeah, I particularly loved they way they eliminated the deficit by 2015, hammered public services and sold off what little remained of the silverware at a discount to Osborne's mates.

All the while abetted by Clegg breaking election promise after election promise. You remember Nick Clegg don't you? Used to be the leader of the Liberals, when they still had a party. Never mind I'm sure Farron will rebuild the party, I wouldn't hold my breath though because he has got the lowest approval rating of any party leader.

 

[smoker]

The man is a f***ing idiot and clearly thinks the British public are too. He might be right.

Does anyone here actually believe that bombing syria will stop terrorism in Britain?

As part of a coordinated strategy to get rid of ISIS and tackle Islamism at home, why shouldn't it be? Leave them alone we will have far bigger fires to fight in the future.

Yeah, I particularly loved they way they eliminated the deficit by 2015, hammered public services and sold off what little remained of the silverware at a discount to Osborne's mates.

All the while abetted by Clegg breaking election promise after election promise. You remember Nick Clegg don't you? Used to be the leader of the Liberals, when they still had a party. Never mind I'm sure Farron will rebuild the party, I wouldn't hold my breath though because he has got the lowest approval rating of any party leader.

Opinion piece.