Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In Labour’s entire history just one general election winnin

135

Comments

  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I don't think it necessarily follows either. He'll still have lots of manifesto to follow - and staying in the EU wasn't a key plank of the manifesto - and he's not contesting the next election anyway.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Jeremy Corbyn is the Leader of the Labour Party, Alex Tsipras is Prime Minister of Greece, Putin is Tsar of all the Russias, Donald Trump may plausibly be POTUS, Marine LePen may plausibly be the President of the French Republic.

    Whatever you predict, nobody will laugh at you. Reality is not at home to Mr Sensible these days.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
    If only there was a 'third way'.
  • Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Hang on a minute.
    What happened to the AV thread that was promised?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    viewcode said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Jeremy Corbyn is the Leader of the Labour Party, Alex Tsipras is Prime Minister of Greece, Putin is Tsar of all the Russias, Donald Trump may plausibly be POTUS, Marine LePen may plausibly be the President of the French Republic.

    Whatever you predict, nobody will laugh at you. Reality is not at home to Mr Sensible these days.
    All that being said, I might laugh if TSE suggests that the saffers could win this test series...
  • Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    So 'some' in the party will blame Cameron rather than the electorate? Well yes. That does rather sound like the thicko Right.
    If the electorate are lied to by someone they trust then you blame the person doing the lying. Only the terminally moronic like your self would think otherwise.
    Most of the public expect politicians to lie occasionally. The only people who don't are the naive or those who lack the intelligence to do so.
  • Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Hang on a minute.
    What happened to the AV thread that was promised?
    Later on this month.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.
    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Corbyn is a threat to anyone who values the monarchy, the Union, or who owns property.
  • viewcode said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Jeremy Corbyn is the Leader of the Labour Party, Alex Tsipras is Prime Minister of Greece, Putin is Tsar of all the Russias, Donald Trump may plausibly be POTUS, Marine LePen may plausibly be the President of the French Republic.

    Whatever you predict, nobody will laugh at you. Reality is not at home to Mr Sensible these days.
    I think my worst tip for GE2015 was The Lib Dems to make net gains.

    (This was in 2013)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961



    I think my worst tip for GE2015 was The Lib Dems to make net gains.

    (This was in 2013)

    You'll now have to wait for the Birthday Honours to be awarded the Order of the Muppet....

  • Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Hang on a minute.
    What happened to the AV thread that was promised?
    Later on this month.
    You tease.


  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    That would be awesome.

    I think if there's a real chance that Leave!=Camexit then it changes a lot of calculations about next leader/PM value.


  • I think my worst tip for GE2015 was The Lib Dems to make net gains.

    (This was in 2013)

    You'll now have to wait for the Birthday Honours to be awarded the Order of the Muppet....

    It was all part of the Tory master strategy to lull the Lib Dems in to a false sense of security.

    That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    It comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time.

    I still have trouble understanding the mentality of a politician who could write that.
    Naturally I don't see Corbyn as you do (tool of Brezhnev and all that) - you won't understand if you don't take the starting point that people like me like him and most of his policies.

    Look, there isn't any point in politics if you don't stand for anything very interesting, unless you see the other side as so evil that literally anything or nothing is better. Ironically, I suppose that I'm centrist enough to concede that the Government is not that evil, so it makes sense to decide what we think and then seek a majority for it rather than decide what floating voters think and pretend to agree. But we're repeating old ground, so I'll leave it there.

    (And yes, my earlier post left out Miliband, sorry, so the score so far of member-elected leaders is 4 selected, 1 winner (Blair), 1 who would probnably have won (Smith), 2 losers (Kinnock and Miliband, with arguably reasonable excuses). And of course Ed would not have won if only members' votes hjad been counted, so I'm not sure that counts.
    Respectfully Nick, if you don't see any point in uncontroversial politics, I think you're entirely missing the point of governing in the post Soviet world, and misunderstanding the mood of the public at large.

    In general, the right has won the economic argument and the left the social argument. That is why centrism consists of socially acceptable embracing of capitalism. It is why turnout is low at elections, and lower still in elections which matter less to people's everyday lives.

    If Labour are not in tune with this, then they'll fail to either do a good job holding the Govt to account or present a decent alternative. If they're more concerned with, for example, boycotting goods of a certain origin (as my main Corbynista contact is) they should abdicate responsibility for being HM's loyal opposition to the SNP....
    Yes and No. An economic Right/Social Left consensus is clearly one that many voters (right and left) detest. Probably there are 25% of voters who would endorse a pacifist socialist republican party, and another 25% would endorse a hardline Conservative platform. So, the Corbynistas are tapping into real discontent.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Settling down to watch Black Mass. (Loved Michael Caine in "Youth" - superb art-house cinema at its finest).
  • Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Hang on a minute.
    What happened to the AV thread that was promised?
    Later on this month.
    "The Admiral TSE is as clumsy as he is stupid!"
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    I wonder if Leave wins, will Cameron own the result, and say he gave the voters the chance to make their views known?
    I suspect he'll resign were he to be on the losing side of the referendum.
    That's what everyone seems to expect. I keep jumping on suggestions to the contrary because it obviously has huge betting significance if he could "own" a Leave result. Maybe a subject for a thread?
    I'll look into doing a thread on that next weekend.

    Just putting the finishing touch to the morning thread that includes either an inspired betting tip or one that will make you all laugh at me some more.
    Hang on a minute.
    What happened to the AV thread that was promised?
    Later on this month.
    You appear to have been inspired by Chief Vitalstatistix...
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
    I think you will find that supporting Iran rather than Saudi will turn out to be on the right side of history, and is supported by increasing numbers in the West. Corbyn was on the right side of history with regard to ending apartheid in South Africa and the peace process in Ireland. Your anti-semite jibe is simply a crude libel.

    I have an image of you spluttering in White's in a Bateman cartoon.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    MM Black Mass is a very brave move for Depp..
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:


    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical,consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer Feeling tend to come to decisions by empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Corbyn is a threat to anyone who values the monarchy, the Union, or who owns property.
    Corbyn is a threat to anyone who values liberal values.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,927
    edited January 2016
    Cyclefree said:

    Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology

    Marxists actually hate Trotskyists!

    http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=leaflets&subName=display&leafletId=89
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.
    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, ...e inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Corbyn is a threat to anyone who values the monarchy, the Union, or who owns property.
    Conveniently - for opponents - most everybody in the country clings to at least one of those as sacrosanct...
  • Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:

    Corbyn doesn't like making decisions and he doesn't like conflict. He wants everyone to agree. This means that decisions are not necessary.

    He likes to be with those who agree with him and likes to agree with those he is with. He cannot cope with conflict.

    These qualities make Corbyn likeable.
    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    In Jungian terms, those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, ...e inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. They are more likeable.

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Corbyn is a threat to anyone who values the monarchy, the Union, or who owns property.
    Conveniently - for opponents - most everybody in the country clings to at least one of those as sacrosanct...
    No dissent permitted!
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973
    Oh dear. Everything in that article seems utterly , utterly ludicrous. Even inviting varafoukis to speak at labours economics relaunch. But then I wake up from my dream, realise corbyn is in charge and that anything is possible. Even Abbott as defence or foreign secretary.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
    I think you will find that supporting Iran rather than Saudi will turn out to be on the right side of history, and is supported by increasing numbers in the West. Corbyn was on the right side of history with regard to ending apartheid in South Africa and the peace process in Ireland. Your anti-semite jibe is simply a crude libel.

    I have an image of you spluttering in White's in a Bateman cartoon.

    I'm not convinced supporting Saudi or Iran is the answer.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Mortimer said:



    Respectfully Nick, if you don't see any point in uncontroversial politics, I think you're entirely missing the point of governing in the post Soviet world, and misunderstanding the mood of the public at large.

    In general, the right has won the economic argument and the left the social argument. That is why centrism consists of socially acceptable embracing of capitalism. It is why turnout is low at elections, and lower still in elections which matter less to people's everyday lives.

    If Labour are not in tune with this, then they'll fail to either do a good job holding the Govt to account or present a decent alternative. If they're more concerned with, for example, boycotting goods of a certain origin (as my main Corbynista contact is) they should abdicate responsibility for being HM's loyal opposition to the SNP....

    It's a common view, but probably not one held by a majority, and certainly not a prerequisite for taking part in politics. There's something a bit, uh, Soviet about expecting everyone to adopt the same basic assumptions. "The end of history" by Fukuyama (which espoused similar ideas - we won, that's it!) looked plausible for a bit, but is now not very widely seen as accurate.

    I agree that Soviet economics and authoritarianism have been thoroughly discredited, but most people feel that globalised capitalism sucks too - they essentially feel they're in a fragile position with no real protection from national governments, trade unions, or anyone else. A decision made by someone they've never heard of in a company based 1000 miles away could ruin their lives, and nobody is able or willing to help. Hence Trump, Le Pen, Tsipras etc.

    Does Corbyn offer a well-developed answer? No, and he doesn't claim to. But it seems to me that he starts from the right basis - sympathising with the vulnerable, taking a sceptical view of multinationals, etc., and he wants us (in and around Labour) to develop an alternative from that starting point, in a debate conducted without slogans and venom. I would never have supported a Scargill-led party, since I felt he thought he had the answers and would try to shout down anyone who disagreed. But democracy in general and Britain in particular needs a reasonable alternative that is neither based on vacuous populism and isolationism nor on a reckless embrace of the globalised free market with minor squabbles over electricity pricing or school organisation being the only serious points of difference.

    I don't dispute that some may feel that accepting things as they are and arguing over details to gain power is an interesting way to spend one's life. But it's not one I want.


  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Sean_F said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    It comes down as usual to "Do you choose who will speak for you or who you think has the best chance of winning?" and most of us decided we wanted the former this time.

    I still have trouble understanding the mentality of a politician who could write that.
    Naturally I don't see Corbyn as you do (tool of Brezhnev and all that) - you won't understand if you don't take the starting point that people like me like him and most of his policies.

    Look, there isn't any point in politics if you don't stand for anything very interesting, unless you see the other side as so evil that literally anything or nothing is better. Ironically, I suppose that I'm centrist enough to concede that the Government is not that evil, so it makes sense to decide what we think and then seek a majority for it rather than decide what floating voters think and pretend to agree. But we're repeating old ground, so I'll leave it there.

    (And yes, my earlier post left out Miliband, sorry, so the score so far of member-elected leaders is 4 selected, 1 winner (Blair), 1 who would probnably have won (Smith), 2 losers (Kinnock and Miliband, with arguably reasonable excuses). And of course Ed would not have won if only members' votes hjad been counted, so I'm not sure that counts.
    Respectfully Nick, if you don't see any point in uncontroversial politics, I think you're entirely missing the point of governing in the post Soviet world, and misunderstanding the mood of the public at large.

    In general, the right has won the economic argument and the left the social argument. That is why centrism consists of socially acceptable embracing of capitalism. It is why turnout is low at elections, and lower still in elections which matter less to people's everyday lives.

    If Labour are not in tune with this, then they'll fail to either do a good job holding the Govt to account or present a decent alternative. If they're more concerned with, for example, boycotting goods of a certain origin (as my main Corbynista contact is) they should abdicate responsibility for being HM's loyal opposition to the SNP....
    Yes and No. An economic Right/Social Left consensus is clearly one that many voters (right and left) detest. Probably there are 25% of voters who would endorse a pacifist socialist republican party, and another 25% would endorse a hardline Conservative platform. So, the Corbynistas are tapping into real discontent.
    I don't think the numbers are either that evenly split nor that large on either side. Perhaps 15-17 might support a Trot party, and about 12-13% might support a hardline Consevative platform. Thankfully, neither will succeed barring a black swan of proportions not seen since 1918-39
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .

    In Myers Briggs terms, Corbyn is an F rather than a T (making decisions by Feeling rather than Thinking).

    Most successful leaders are T. Maggie was a classic ENTJ - "Field Marshal" type. Most CEOs are ENTJ.

    On the other hand, Ghandi was an F. He was an NF idealist.

    Corbyn is also an idealist. I think he is an INFP - idealist healer. Only 1% of the population are INFP. It is quite rare.

    That is why the picture painted of him as a scheming Trotskyist who will dump on his enemies is so wrong. He is looking for harmony in his party and in the world. He is, of course, going to be sorely disappointed. Does he have the endurance of a Ghandi? Will people grow to respect his idealism and despise his detractors. I don't think so but we shall see.
    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
    I think you will find that supporting Iran rather than Saudi will turn out to be on the right side of history, and is supported by increasing numbers in the West. Corbyn was on the right side of history with regard to ending apartheid in South Africa and the peace process in Ireland. Your anti-semite jibe is simply a crude libel.

    I have an image of you spluttering in White's in a Bateman cartoon.
    I'm not convinced that supporting Sinn Fein placed him on the right side of history.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .



    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
    I think you will find that supporting Iran rather than Saudi will turn out to be on the right side of history, and is supported by increasing numbers in the West. Corbyn was on the right side of history with regard to ending apartheid in South Africa and the peace process in Ireland. Your anti-semite jibe is simply a crude libel.

    I have an image of you spluttering in White's in a Bateman cartoon.
    Corbyn opposed the peace process in Ireland voting against the agreements which have brought some sort of peace to Northern Ireland. There were plenty of people who opposed apartheid in South Africa. He was hardly in the avant garde on that nor some isolated ahead of his time campaigner. It is a matter of record that he sought to invite a convicted anti-Semite to the House of Commons and that he has described Hamas, who are certainly anti-Semitic (read their founding charter), as friends. Iran is a country with which we will have to do business but that is very different from going round being a spokesman for it and not challenging its more disgusting aspects. In the latter regard there is, frankly, nothing to choose between it and Saudi Arabia and Iran - like Saudi Arabia - sponsors the spread of its version of its Islamist ideology and sponsors terrorist groups which have attacked far outside the Middle East e.g. in Argentina.

    I wouldn't know about White's, never having been there, or ever likely to. I will leave it to you. You seem much better informed about such clubs than me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Good. Hilarious disaster or surprising triumph awaits.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology

    Marxists actually hate Trotskyists!

    http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=leaflets&subName=display&leafletId=89
    The narcissism of small differences.
  • Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Revenge is a dish best gorged upon....
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236

    Oh dear. Everything in that article seems utterly , utterly ludicrous. Even inviting varafoukis to speak at labours economics relaunch. But then I wake up from my dream, realise corbyn is in charge and that anything is possible. Even Abbott as defence or foreign secretary.
    Varoufakis. The man who cost Greece billions (literally!) by being a dick.

    So let's summarise. Labour looked at Greece during Summer 2015 and went. "OK. Let's do that"

    Oookayyy...

    Backs nervously towards the exit....
  • Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:


    It's a common view, but probably not one held by a majority, and certainly not a prerequisite for taking part in politics. There's something a bit, uh, Soviet about expecting everyone to adopt the same basic assumptions. "The end of history" by Fukuyama (which espoused similar ideas - we won, that's it!) looked plausible for a bit, but is now not very widely seen as accurate.

    I agree that Soviet economics and authoritarianism have been thoroughly discredited, but most people feel that globalised capitalism sucks too - they essentially feel they're in a fragile position with no real protection from national governments, trade unions, or anyone else. A decision made by someone they've never heard of in a company based 1000 miles away could ruin their lives, and nobody is able or willing to help. Hence Trump, Le Pen, Tsipras etc.

    Does Corbyn offer a well-developed answer? No, and he doesn't claim to. But it seems to me that he starts from the right basis - sympathising with the vulnerable, taking a sceptical view of multinationals, etc., and he wants us (in and around Labour) to develop an alternative from that starting point, in a debate conducted without slogans and venom. I would never have supported a Scargill-led party, since I felt he thought he had the answers and would try to shout down anyone who disagreed. But democracy in general and Britain in particular needs a reasonable alternative that is neither based on vacuous populism and isolationism nor on a reckless embrace of the globalised free market with minor squabbles over electricity pricing or school organisation being the only serious points of difference.

    I don't dispute that some may feel that accepting things as they are and arguing over details to gain power is an interesting way to spend one's life. But it's not one I want.


    I'm sorry to burst your bubble Nick, but mostly people wouldn't claim to have an opinion on global capitalism. Most people are happy with the status quo that means they have a job despite increasing mechanisation and automation, and because it means they can have a takeaway a week and two annual holidays.

    Talking about some mythical tax gap whilst the state continues to both support and protect Britain through taxation and the general consensus of the wealthy, incessant chatter over 'global inequality' despite a billion being taken out of poverty in a few decades by the growth of capital markets and worrying about the 'plight' of those who despise the freedoms of the West, and often want to restrict those freedoms here, is simply never going to chime with voters. If this is really what Labour care about, why don't they become a pressure group?
  • Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .

    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
    I think you will find that supporting Iran rather than Saudi will turn out to be on the right side of history, and is supported by increasing numbers in the West. Corbyn was on the right side of history with regard to ending apartheid in South Africa and the peace process in Ireland. Your anti-semite jibe is simply a crude libel.

    I have an image of you spluttering in White's in a Bateman cartoon.
    I'm not convinced that supporting Sinn Fein placed him on the right side of history.
    By far the more popular of the two Nationalist parties.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    Mortimer said:

    If this is really what Labour care about, why don't they become a pressure group?

    Well, to be fair, they're working at it really hard...

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    What do Star Trek and toilet paper have in common?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    JenS said:



    .

    Oh please! An "idealist healer" who shills for the Iranian regime, thinks of Hamas as "friends" and thinks that virulent anti-Semites have something to say which should be heard. Very healing, very idealistic.

    What balls. Just because he looks and sounds like a "wouldn't harm a fly" geography teacher doesn't mean that what he thinks is equally benign and non-threatening. The trouble with the English is that, so fond of muddling through pragmatic "will it work" approaches to politics, they find it incomprehensible that someone might actually believe all that Marxist-Trotskyist-anti-colonial-oppressive-West ideology and that such an ideology is actually not at all benign and harmless.
    I agree that Corbyn is a threat, (in the way Gandhi was to the Britsh Empire), to the current neocon ideology that promotes the interests of the hedge funds, oil companies and arms industry, cosies up to the Saudis, and generally finds itself on the wrong side of history. Yes Corbyn is a threat to that ideology.
    Yeah: instead of cosying up to the Saudis he'll cosy up to the Iranians (a choice between those who behead women and whose who rape and then stone them), Putin and his cronies, South American regimes that have impoverished their people and anti-Semites everywhere. Not so much on the wrong side of history as repeating all the worst mistakes of the 20th century.
    I think you will find that supporting Iran rather than Saudi will turn out to be on the right side of history, and is supported by increasing numbers in the West. Corbyn was on the right side of history with regard to ending apartheid in South Africa and the peace process in Ireland. Your anti-semite jibe is simply a crude libel.

    I have an image of you spluttering in White's in a Bateman cartoon.
    I'm not convinced that supporting Sinn Fein placed him on the right side of history.
    By far the more popular of the two Nationalist parties.
    But, still miles away from taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Tim_B said:

    Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    What do Star Trek and toilet paper have in common?

    They both circle ****** looking for *******.
  • Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    You will be delighted to know, I'm written in my head the outline of a thread which compares a top UK politician to James Tiberius Kirk
  • RT..You mean like the trusted Blair lied..

    Very much so. There are many Tory and Opposition MPs who claim they were mislead by Blair. Far from criticising this I believe they are absolutely right to point it out. I do not blame people for making decisions based on outright lies by those who they have hitherto, at least to some extent, trusted to be honest with the big issues.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    Tim_B said:

    Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    What do Star Trek and toilet paper have in common?
    They went totally shit after the second spinoff and they're only ever really good when Nicholas Meyer directs?

    Obviously, it depends on the toilet paper...
  • Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    You will be delighted to know, I'm written in my head the outline of a thread which compares a top UK politician to James Tiberius Kirk
    Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side!

    (EDIT: oops, wrong franchise!)
  • Danny565 said:

    Also, it's rather bemusing that people in this thread keep saying things like "if you take Blair out of the equation, Labour haven't done well in an election since the 1970s".

    We might as well take Cameron out of the equation and say that, by the time of the next election, no Tory leader will have topped 32% in an election in nearly 30 years.

    There is a major difference between 50 years and 30 years is there not?

    EDIT: Plus it is the left wanting to take Blair out of the equation calling him a Tory etc. We Conservatives actually overall like rather than disown Cameron.
    Give it time, if he wins the EU referendum for Remain, then he's going to be compared to Ted Heath by some in the party.

    Like Blair and Thatcher, Cameron might go entire his leadership not being rejected by the people, that will drive some up the wall.
    So 'some' in the party will blame Cameron rather than the electorate? Well yes. That does rather sound like the thicko Right.
    If the electorate are lied to by someone they trust then you blame the person doing the lying. Only the terminally moronic like your self would think otherwise.
    Moronic like yourself? Thats good coming from you.
    Your excuses are pathetic. If Remain win they will win because the public want to remain. More to the point they will win because Leave cannot tell the electorate where they want to take them to or how bumpy the journey might be.
    But no. You and the terminally moronic like yourself have only one target Cameron.
    Talking bollocks again. This from the man whose knowledge of the EU and European affffairs in general would shame a sixth former.

    Actually I have come to the conclusion that either you are a spotty snot nosed teenager or your are suffering from some degenerative sexually transmitted brain disease. I can think of no other explanation for anyone being quite so plain stupid.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    You will be delighted to know, I'm written in my head the outline of a thread which compares a top UK politician to James Tiberius Kirk

    Is it about Douglas Carswell, using periscope, and entitled "In space, no one can see you stream"?

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    viewcode said:

    Tim_B said:

    Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    What do Star Trek and toilet paper have in common?
    They went totally shit after the second spinoff and they're only ever really good when Nicholas Meyer directs?

    Obviously, it depends on the toilet paper...
    They both fight the klingons :)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @NickP

    I think that you are right. There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    I think that Corbyn takes his sympathies with those factions from the fact that they oppose capitalism, but he needs a much more coherent approach than that. I do not think that he has the intellectual abilities to come up with the goods, hence his tail-coatting on the ideas of others.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    edited January 2016

    Muttering doing a morning thread headlined

    Revenge is a dish best served bold
    Ah, Kirk TSE, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish best served cold?

    It is very cold... in space!
    You will be delighted to know, I'm written in my head the outline of a thread which compares a top UK politician to James Tiberius Kirk

    Is it about Douglas Carswell, using periscope, and entitled "In space, no one can see you stream"?

    No, I compare Ozzy to James Kirk, and say he is better suited to being Master Strategist/Éminence grise/Chancellor than being party leader.

    As Spock said to Admiral Kirk in The Wrath of Khan

    "If I may be so bold, it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first, best destiny; anything else is a waste of material."
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    I have a skiing question. I'm watching the FIS Tour de Ski.

    The commentators are going on and on about how it favors classic over freestyle.

    Isn't skiing just skiing? What's the difference?
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited January 2016
    I think Corbyn is right to try and build the party as he sees fit, with a shadow cabinet that he feels represents the best way to realise his vision. He's been legitimately voted in by a majority of the people eligible to vote.
    Now, that is probably the wrong thing to do to get elected as a government, but Labourites can't piss and moan about it, them's the rules of the game, and he's playing the game as he sees fit.

    It is genuinely refreshing to see a political leader trying something so bold, even if it is a bit batshit crazy in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't do the country any favours though, with the official opposition more concerned with it's own internal struggle than holding the government's feet to the fire.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    @NickP

    I think that you are right. There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    I think that Corbyn takes his sympathies with those factions from the fact that they oppose capitalism, but he needs a much more coherent approach than that. I do not think that he has the intellectual abilities to come up with the goods, hence his tail-coatting on the ideas of others.

    A yearning? Perhaps in a few thousand. What was the total vote of the SWP and SDLP in 2015?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Mortimer said:

    @NickP

    I think that you are right. There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    I think that Corbyn takes his sympathies with those factions from the fact that they oppose capitalism, but he needs a much more coherent approach than that. I do not think that he has the intellectual abilities to come up with the goods, hence his tail-coatting on the ideas of others.

    A yearning? Perhaps in a few thousand. What was the total vote of the SWP and SDLP in 2015?
    SDLP 99,809

    Did the SWP stand as such? If so the BBC has them folded into "Others".
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    edited January 2016

    ...There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    I like shallow materialist consumerism. You get iPads for Christmas.

    There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism

    Yes. Burning gays to death. Remind me again what's wrong with capitalism?

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    So, Labour now falls into the same set as Islamism, environmentalism and greenism?
  • Mortimer said:

    @NickP

    I think that you are right. There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    I think that Corbyn takes his sympathies with those factions from the fact that they oppose capitalism, but he needs a much more coherent approach than that. I do not think that he has the intellectual abilities to come up with the goods, hence his tail-coatting on the ideas of others.

    A yearning? Perhaps in a few thousand. What was the total vote of the SWP and SDLP in 2015?
    SDLP 99,809

    Did the SWP stand as such? If so the BBC has them folded into "Others".
    The Shinners got 176,232

    Trades Union and Socialist Coalition got 36,237
    Socialist Labour 3,481
    Workers Party (NI) 2,724
    Communists 1,229
    Socialist (GB) 899
    Scottish Socialist 875
    Alliance for Green Socialism 852
    Class War 526
    Workers Revolutionary 488
    Left Unity 455
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited January 2016
    I do, incidentally and as much as it sometime fails to come across in my posts, sympathise with the plight of the Labour Party and its fervent supporters on here. I supported Hague and IDS, and simply couldn't understand why no-one seemed to care about Europe, the chance we could enter the Euro, the influence of the state on country matters and on individual liberties 97-2007...
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    @NickP

    I think that you are right. There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    I think that Corbyn takes his sympathies with those factions from the fact that they oppose capitalism, but he needs a much more coherent approach than that. I do not think that he has the intellectual abilities to come up with the goods, hence his tail-coatting on the ideas of others.

    I rather like consumerism and I don't accept that it's shallow. On the contrary, its benefits are real. That's what makes it so attractive. If I buy an iPad I have an iPad. If I commit myself to celibacy and spend my life in a closed community petitioning the Most High for salvation I have nothing but a wasted life.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2016

    Mortimer said:



    Respectfully Nick, if you don't see any point in uncontroversial politics, I think you're entirely missing the point of governing in the post Soviet world, and misunderstanding the mood of the public at large.

    In general, the right has won the economic argument and the left the social argument. That is why centrism consists of socially acceptable embracing of capitalism. It is why turnout is low at elections, and lower still in elections which matter less to people's everyday lives.

    If Labour are not in tune with this, then they'll fail to either do a good job holding the Govt to account or present a decent alternative. If they're more concerned with, for example, boycotting goods of a certain origin (as my main Corbynista contact is) they should abdicate responsibility for being HM's loyal opposition to the SNP....


    I don't dispute that some may feel that accepting things as they are and arguing over details to gain power is an interesting way to spend one's life. But it's not one I want.


    Unless you had won Broxtowe 2x.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2016
    Just back from finally watching Star Wars. In IMAX 3D. :+1:

    Best movie I've seen this year!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Can I ask a genuine question of the combined wisdom - if you had been on a train during the storms in the north a few weeks ago (the ones before the Christmas ones) and you had been delayed, would you be trying to get a refund?

    One of my most vocal critics on fb is trying to do this - seems a bit harsh on the train companies, to be honest. Is it even possible to get refunds because of weather??
  • Ffs, kolorov own goal..

    So my last defender will now score an own goal and be sent off then tomorrow, not good for Eric dier or spurs sadly...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:


    It's a common view, but probably not one held by a majority, and certainly not a prerequisite for taking part in politics. There's something a bit, uh, Soviet about expecting everyone to adopt the same basic assumptions. "The end of history" by Fukuyama (which espoused similar ideas - we won, that's it!) looked plausible for a

    Does Corbyn offer a well-developed answer? No, and he doesn't claim to. But it seems to me that he starts from the right basis - sympathising with the vulnerable, taking a sceptical view of multinationals, etc., and he wants us (in and around Labour) to develop an alternative from that starting point, in a debate conducted without slogans and venom. I would never have supported a Scargill-led party, since I felt he thought he had the answers and would try to shout down anyone who disagreed. But democracy in general and Britain in particular needs a reasonable alternative that is neither based on vacuous populism and isolationism nor on a reckless embrace of the globalised free market with minor squabbles over electricity pricing or school organisation being the only serious points of difference.

    I don't dispute that some may feel that accepting things as they are and arguing over details to gain power is an interesting way to spend one's life. But it's not one I want.


    I'm sorry to burst your bubble Nick, but mostly people wouldn't claim to have an opinion on global capitalism. Most people are happy with the status quo that means they have a job despite increasing mechanisation and automation, and because it means they can have a takeaway a week and two annual holidays.

    Talking about some mythical tax gap whilst the state continues to both support and protect Britain through taxation and the general consensus of the wealthy, incessant chatter over 'global inequality' despite a billion being taken out of poverty in a few decades by the growth of capital markets and worrying about the 'plight' of those who despise the freedoms of the West, and often want to restrict those freedoms here, is simply never going to chime with voters. If this is really what Labour care about, why don't they become a pressure group?
    Global capitalism has been excellent news for hundreds of millions of poor people worldwide over the past couple of decades.

    For Westerners of average abilities over the same time period - not so much. And when combined with political correctness being preached at them by their social superiors, they're starting to get pissed off.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Mortimer said:

    Can I ask a genuine question of the combined wisdom - if you had been on a train during the storms in the north a few weeks ago (the ones before the Christmas ones) and you had been delayed, would you be trying to get a refund?

    One of my most vocal critics on fb is trying to do this - seems a bit harsh on the train companies, to be honest. Is it even possible to get refunds because of weather??

    Depends on the TOC.

    http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/72098.aspx

    Train companies may not pay out if the delay was caused by something outside the control of the rail industry. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage sets out these circumstances which include, vandalism, exceptionally severe weather and when the police or emergency services close the line.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Mortimer said:

    @NickP

    I think that you are right. There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    I think that Corbyn takes his sympathies with those factions from the fact that they oppose capitalism, but he needs a much more coherent approach than that. I do not think that he has the intellectual abilities to come up with the goods, hence his tail-coatting on the ideas of others.

    A yearning? Perhaps in a few thousand. What was the total vote of the SWP and SDLP in 2015?
    SDLP 99,809

    Did the SWP stand as such? If so the BBC has them folded into "Others".
    The Shinners got 176,232

    Trades Union and Socialist Coalition got 36,237
    Socialist Labour 3,481
    Workers Party (NI) 2,724
    Communists 1,229
    Socialist (GB) 899
    Scottish Socialist 875
    Alliance for Green Socialism 852
    Class War 526
    Workers Revolutionary 488
    Left Unity 455
    The Conservative party got to be the natural party of government by essentially being the apolitical choice - the centre ground if you will. The extremists to the left and right have no chance because there is always an overwhelming majority for the party that doesn't want to rock the boat too much. Twill always be thus while the economy chugs along nicely. all the shrieking from the left about austerity and the NHS and from the right about the EU/immigration is just froth.
  • The Sunday Times are reporting Ministers saying Cameron must go if he loses the EU referendum.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    TOPPING said:

    Mortimer said:



    Respectfully Nick, if you don't see any point in uncontroversial politics, I think you're entirely missing the point of governing in the post Soviet world, and misunderstanding the mood of the public at large.

    In general, the right has won the economic argument and the left the social argument. That is why centrism consists of socially acceptable embracing of capitalism. It is why turnout is low at elections, and lower still in elections which matter less to people's everyday lives.

    If Labour are not in tune with this, then they'll fail to either do a good job holding the Govt to account or present a decent alternative. If they're more concerned with, for example, boycotting goods of a certain origin (as my main Corbynista contact is) they should abdicate responsibility for being HM's loyal opposition to the SNP....


    I don't dispute that some may feel that accepting things as they are and arguing over details to gain power is an interesting way to spend one's life. But it's not one I want.


    Unless you had won Broxtowe 2x.
    Lol - harsh but right on the button - this was the man who kept totalmente schtum throughout the noughties and turned into a raving Marxist courtesy of 2 rogerings from la soubry :)
  • The Sunday Times are reporting Ministers saying Cameron must go if he loses the EU referendum.

    We heard all the same over the AV ref.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    SeanT said:

    viewcode said:

    ...There is a yearning for a counter-narative, a coherent critique of all of the problems of the shallow materialist consumerism of liberal capitalism. Ours is a society that has sold our birthright of enlightenment values very cheaply.

    I like shallow materialist consumerism. You get iPads for Christmas.

    There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism

    Yes. Burning gays to death. Remind me again what's wrong with capitalism?

    For at least a decade before the collapse of the Soviet Union its rotten state was clear. There is a tendency in Islamism to find a set of counter values opposite to mercenary capitalism, and much the same with environmentalism and greenism.

    So, Labour now falls into the same set as Islamism, environmentalism and greenism?
    I think your last line sums it up, perfectly. Corbyn's Labour is now akin to Islamism. It has fanatical support amongst a few (who have an odd penchant for aggression, despite their avoid piety or pacifism) yet is utterly offputting to the majority.
    Thank you.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2016
    We heard on here over the past couple of years from a certain poster that there was plenty of dirt to come. It seems it has been unleashed.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Cyclefree said:



    Corbyn opposed the peace process in Ireland voting against the agreements which have brought some sort of peace to Northern Ireland.

    Did he? I don't remember that - in fact my recollection is that he supported the agreement. Link?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,927
    edited January 2016
    Sandpit said:

    Just back from finally watching Star Wars. In IMAX 3D. :+1:

    Best movie I've seen this year!

    The Force is strong with you!
  • Cyclefree said:



    Corbyn opposed the peace process in Ireland voting against the agreements which have brought some sort of peace to Northern Ireland.

    Did he? I don't remember that - in fact my recollection is that he supported the agreement. Link?
    He voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement

    More important than the political theatre Corbyn engaged in is the fact that Corbyn has not been consistent in his support of the efforts made by Britain to encourage dialogue and the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Most notably, he voted against the critically important 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, saying:

    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given [i.e. Unionist]? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the twenty-six counties, and those of us who wish to see a united Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/
  • Feck's sake, means I now have to write a new morning thread now
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Cyclefree said:



    Corbyn opposed the peace process in Ireland voting against the agreements which have brought some sort of peace to Northern Ireland.

    Did he? I don't remember that - in fact my recollection is that he supported the agreement. Link?
    He certainly opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreement#S6CV0087P0_19851127_HOC_294
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    edited January 2016
    Goldsmith experiences The Wrath of Khan

    The biggest election of the year — the battle for London mayor — erupted in personal rancour last night as Labour’s candidate, Sadiq Khan, accused his Tory rival, Zac Goldsmith, of being a “serial and habitual underachiever” who is not up to the job.

    Khan took the gloves off in an interview with The Sunday Times after Goldsmith accused him, on his election leaflets, of being “radical and divisive”. Khan said the Tories were “playing with fire” by labelling a Muslim candidate in that way and said it could upset ethnic and religious harmony in the capital.

    He also branded Goldsmith the “Scarlet Pimpernel of the City”, saying the Tory was not in touch with business leaders.

    In the interview, Khan warned Jeremy Corbyn not to hold a “revenge reshuffle” to oust party moderates; said Labour’s leader would “not get a second look” from voters if he stuck to a core vote strategy; and said Labour’s leader was still “learning the ropes” .

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1652091.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2016_01_02
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Cyclefree said:



    Corbyn opposed the peace process in Ireland voting against the agreements which have brought some sort of peace to Northern Ireland.

    Did he? I don't remember that - in fact my recollection is that he supported the agreement. Link?
    Voted against 1985 Anglo Irish agreement - one of the few dissenting voices in the largest majority of Thatchers govt....



  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2016

    Goldsmith experiences The Wrath of Khan

    The biggest election of the year — the battle for London mayor — erupted in personal rancour last night as Labour’s candidate, Sadiq Khan, accused his Tory rival, Zac Goldsmith, of being a “serial and habitual underachiever” who is not up to the job.

    Khan took the gloves off in an interview with The Sunday Times after Goldsmith accused him, on his election leaflets, of being “radical and divisive”. Khan said the Tories were “playing with fire” by labelling a Muslim candidate in that way and said it could upset ethnic and religious harmony in the capital.

    He also branded Goldsmith the “Scarlet Pimpernel of the City”, saying the Tory was not in touch with business leaders.

    In the interview, Khan warned Jeremy Corbyn not to hold a “revenge reshuffle” to oust party moderates; said Labour’s leader would “not get a second look” from voters if he stuck to a core vote strategy; and said Labour’s leader was still “learning the ropes” .

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1652091.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2016_01_02

    What a shock claiming RACCCCISTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT...If Goldsmith had called Khan “serial and habitual underachiever”, Khan would also be screaming RACCCCISSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
  • If you listen carefully, you can just hear the sound of John Bickley researching Rochdale sports teams, and looking up the names of Council estates he grew up on.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    Sean_F said:

    For Westerners of average abilities over the same time period - not so much. And when combined with political correctness being preached at them by their social superiors, they're starting to get pissed off.

    Well, yes. And no.

    There is one thing that has gotten worse over the past 30 years - housing availability. The young married couple cannot now easily get the bay-and-forecourt with a back garden for the kids that they could in days past. But in all other metrics (health, wealth, happiness, education) things went generally up. Houses with reeking damp used to be normal, now they're rare. Cars used to be luxury, now you're looked at odd if you haven't got one. Computers were exotic, now eight-year-olds have one. We are having this interesting discussion using technology that our parents would have thought fictional 25 years ago, using (of all things) phones and tablets.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Huh, I had no idea Corbyn was born and raised initially in that bastion of Labour support- Wiltshire. Fair to say it's probably not fertile ground for him now, but we'll see in 2017 with the locals I guess.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    SeanT said:

    Come on, NPXMP, you must have an excuse ready. Some little sidestep, a mewling exoneration of your repulsive leader, the usual Oh but he really meant blah blah blah

    I reckon Corbyn could fuck a trembling goat to death on the Ten O Clock News and his followers would be ready with some extenuating guff about the attractiveness of beards.

    Trembling goat fucker, love to see Milne deny that one.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    If you listen carefully, you can just hear the sound of John Bickley researching Rochdale sports teams, and looking up the names of Council estates he grew up on.

    LOL.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,546
    kle4 said:

    Huh, I had no idea Corbyn was born and raised initially in that bastion of Labour support- Wiltshire. Fair to say it's probably not fertile ground for him now, but we'll see in 2017 with the locals I guess.

    Hearing Corbyn was born in Wiltshire's about as surprising as finding SeanT's a Devonian. And Teignmouth at that ... :)
  • Mortimer said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Corbyn opposed the peace process in Ireland voting against the agreements which have brought some sort of peace to Northern Ireland.

    Did he? I don't remember that - in fact my recollection is that he supported the agreement. Link?
    Voted against 1985 Anglo Irish agreement - one of the few dissenting voices in the largest majority of Thatchers govt....



    No Unionist MP of the time supported the Anglo-Irish agreement - that was why there were 15 by-elections in NI in 1986.
  • If you listen carefully, you can just hear the sound of John Bickley researching Rochdale sports teams, and looking up the names of Council estates he grew up on.

    Well that's the PB comment of 2016 competition ended.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Trying to find a tasteful way to express my excitement at the prospect of a Rochdale by-election. Posting "fuck yeah!" under the Mail's front page doesn't seem to be it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited January 2016
    Mortimer said:

    I do, incidentally and as much as it sometime fails to come across in my posts, sympathise with the plight of the Labour Party and its fervent supporters on here. I supported Hague and IDS, and simply couldn't understand why no-one seemed to care about Europe, the chance we could enter the Euro, the influence of the state on country matters and on individual liberties 97-2007...

    I both sympathise with moderate Labour and hope they regain control of their party. Whilst I may generally agree with much of what the Tory party does in Government and generally disagree with almost everything Labour do, I believe we need an effective Parliamentary opposition to the Government of the day to ensure they do not simply ride roughshod over the country. Neither side is absolutely right or absolutely wrong on everything and without effective opposition we get bad law.

    Corbyn is not just bad for the Labour party, by neutering the Opposition he is also bad for the country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    If you listen carefully, you can just hear the sound of John Bickley researching Rochdale sports teams, and looking up the names of Council estates he grew up on.

    htps://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/683401661809881088

    Brilliant. I hope there's an election leaflet out there somewhere which has quotes like 'I have always fought hard for [insert name of community], and achieved success with [insert local party success here]' on it - across all our parties, someone must have slipped up like that at some point.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    For Westerners of average abilities over the same time period - not so much. And when combined with political correctness being preached at them by their social superiors, they're starting to get pissed off.

    Well, yes. And no.

    There is one thing that has gotten worse over the past 30 years - housing availability. The young married couple cannot now easily get the bay-and-forecourt with a back garden for the kids that they could in days past. But in all other metrics (health, wealth, happiness, education) things went generally up. Houses with reeking damp used to be normal, now they're rare. Cars used to be luxury, now you're looked at odd if you haven't got one. Computers were exotic, now eight-year-olds have one. We are having this interesting discussion using technology that our parents would have thought fictional 25 years ago, using (of all things) phones and tablets.

    I was just about to make the same point, with the addition that my family, which contains a large number of people of average achievement, and they're all, my knowledge, Westerners, are too busy nattering away to each other on fb to worry about their relative position.

    And they're all much better fed than they were 25 years ago.

    My mother, born in similar circumstances on one of the poorest Welsh council estates, looked forward to school dinners as it was the only guaranteed meal of the day. She washed her hair with soap in the toilets. And shared a bed, with coats for warmth, with her younger brother and sister. Her father always had a job, true - but he shouldn't have been worked as he was born with weak lungs and not expected to live - and he died at 47.

    Capitalism has been great for this country.
  • Wanderer said:

    Trying to find a tasteful way to express my excitement at the prospect of a Rochdale by-election. Posting "fuck yeah!" under the Mail's front page doesn't seem to be it.

    I look forward to one day taking the Tram into Rochdale.... one day...
  • So Senior Labour figures have told The Sunday Times that a case that Danczuk abused his position “looks proven”, leading to expulsion
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited January 2016
    Wanderer said:

    Trying to find a tasteful way to express my excitement at the prospect of a Rochdale by-election. Posting "fuck yeah!" under the Mail's front page doesn't seem to be it.

    I see Danscuk is already down as an Independent on the wiki page of the constituency.

    As for tempering excitement - Lab majority 12000+.

    Edit- sub 1000 maj in 2010, but that was in the days where we had Liberal Democrat party.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Mortimer said:

    I do, incidentally and as much as it sometime fails to come across in my posts, sympathise with the plight of the Labour Party and its fervent supporters on here. I supported Hague and IDS, and simply couldn't understand why no-one seemed to care about Europe, the chance we could enter the Euro, the influence of the state on country matters and on individual liberties 97-2007...

    I both sympathise with moderate Labour and hope they regain control of their party. Whilst I may generally agree with much of what the Tory party does in Government and generally disagree with almost everything Labour do, I believe we need an effective Parliamentary opposition to the Government of the day to ensure they do not simply ride roughshod over the country. Neither side is absolutely right or absolutely wrong on everything and without effective opposition we get bad law.

    Corbyn is not just bad for the Labour party, by neutering the Opposition he is also bad for the country.
    Indeed and that opposition (right or left wing, depending on your persuasion) needs to actually be voted into office from time to time on the throw the rascals out principle. Truly unelectable Lab or Con is a problem for all of us.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    Can I ask a genuine question of the combined wisdom - if you had been on a train during the storms in the north a few weeks ago (the ones before the Christmas ones) and you had been delayed, would you be trying to get a refund?

    One of my most vocal critics on fb is trying to do this - seems a bit harsh on the train companies, to be honest. Is it even possible to get refunds because of weather??

    Depends on the TOC.

    http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/72098.aspx

    Train companies may not pay out if the delay was caused by something outside the control of the rail industry. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage sets out these circumstances which include, vandalism, exceptionally severe weather and when the police or emergency services close the line.
    Thanks muchly!
This discussion has been closed.