The election 2015

you are right that is pointless speculating about power because there is zero chance. Even his supporters have acknowledged that and we have the weird scenario of a major party that has little interest in actually winning elections. More interesting is the future of labour and I cannot believe it will hold together. The problem for corbyn is that unlike with Cameron, the backbenchers will be of the intelligence of chukka and hunt with their strong profiles and voter appeal. No barmy bill cash. they hate the far left too.

http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-lost-because-voters-believed-it-was-anti-austerity/

jon cruddas is on the left and unlike corbyn is smart and can think beyond 1983 (there's been more than a hint by some commentators that jc does not pull up trees) . Anti austerity is not bought into by most voters. Even amongst labour voters the majority are for the measures. Only 16% believe in it overall which is strikingly low

to adopt this policy alongside many others which are bound to be alienating is a disaster for labour.

Must admit i it I can't wait to hear his stance on immigration.
 
Warbler said:
Or stand at a memorial in Dublin to those who've fallen in the cause of Irish nationalism, killed by troops fighting in her name.

Thin lines sometimes
Click to expand...

Entirely different though. I think it's pretty clear that he Had (has??)for the ira and their methods and objectives. Without doubt the right are willing him to be elected and then will let the dogs loose.

i hope they absolutely destroy him too. Not because I fear his election but because I would like to see him broken politically
 
Last edited:
Chuka and Hunt don't exactly have the appeal Blair did though. I think you over rate those two myself, Clive. In comparison to Corybn i can see why you think they're good.
 
marble said:
Chuka and Hunt don't exactly have the appeal Blair did though. I think you over rate those two myself, Clive. In comparison to Corybn i can see why you think they're good.
Click to expand...

Few politicians do though marble. For all the subsequent squealing in certain narcisstic quarters, he had enormous voter appeal. Rightly so i believe
 
The only chance I can see that Corbyn has, is if there really is a mass of disengaged who he alone is able to appeal to. I don't doubt that there is a generation of disenfranchised people in this country on top of the usual percentage of apathetic and uninterested, and that it's growing with each cohort. It needs to be on a massive scale to make a difference though. You might argue that UKIP represents the boundaries of the possible, but that would also be to assume that other parties across the political spectrum don't reproduce too.

Say if Labour is on something like 6.5M and loses something like 2.5M to radicalism, they need to gain something in the region of 6-7M from the disaffected and non voters to make good the shortfall to the point where by they might be able to consider government. Is that possible? I'm inclined to suggest it isn't. At the very least it's going to require a really charismatic and energetic leader to make it stick

I also think the Tories need to consider a shift to the left though. Longer term they should be able to learn the lessons of the 1990's and anticipate some kind of New Labour revival in the mid 2020's which seeks to regain the centre right territory. If the Tories pre-empt that and seek to occupy it first rather than remaining on a right wing extreme, they can probably snuff Labour out until the next economic cycle kicks in and they get blamed for something that they were only bit part architects of. Ultimately things like 'the building schools for the future' programme didn't bring about the collapse of Lehman Brothers (come to think of it, the name Lehman and collapse seem to fit rather well at the moment) but Labour spent 6 months naval gazing and talking about themselves before deciding that Ed Miliband was the man. Whilst they wandered around in the wilderness growing ever more disorientated, they surrendered the critical formative narrative allowing the Tories to set the scenery up for the play to follow

The real irony is that had they made a decision to announce their new leader within a fortnight, David Miliband would have won. Same today, Andy Burnham would have won (who would still lose).

Labour's defeat in May was poor, but it was hardly catastrophic in terms of the political history. It was on a scale similar to Kinnocks in 1992, and was repairable. I hold a view that the choice of leader was every bit as critical as any policy issue. 6 months ago though, they entertained talk of being in coalition government. Today they stand on the cusp of electing Jeremy Corbyn. They do largely have themselves to blame for introducing a deeply flawed process which even a 10 year old could see the systemic weakness of

It's funny
 
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of that. That electoral system they've introduced was mind boggling stupid and says a lot about Ed's strategic abilities.

The tories have grabbed some of the centre ground already with the minimum wage commitment.

As for the "disenfranchised" I think a lot of their views on immigration and terrorists are going to somewhat at odds with Corbyn's? Also there have always been a whole group of people who wont vote and take little interest. The idea that they are sitting there waiting for a far left leader is fantasy land. The liklihood is that they will simply not vote again
 
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer

This is only a smallish community and he wont be bothered at losing their support so long as he can court the lslam facists, which he will do of course.

I actually believe he is an outright bigot who hates jews, despite some of the defending in the press. You can be against israel's policies but you simply do not not have to fund holocaust deniers and seek approval of islamists who quote blood libel and other such weird nonsense. Nor do you quickly run to the defence of Sizer, who is a nasty piece of work

It is very easy to avoid these people whereas he has sought them out to offer support

It comes to something when a considered, serious and moderate paper representing a community actually states it fears for their future under a leader of a major political party
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer

This is only a smallish community and he wont be bothered at losing their support so long as he can court the lslam facists, which he will do of course.

I actually believe he is an outright bigot who hates jews, despite some of the defending in the press. You can be against israel's policies but you simply do not not have to fund holocaust deniers and seek approval of islamists who quote blood libel and other such weird nonsense. Nor do you quickly run to the defence of Sizer, who is a nasty piece of work

It is very easy to avoid these people whereas he has sought them out to offer support

It comes to something when a considered, serious and moderate paper representing a community actually states it fears for their future under a leader of a major political party
Click to expand...


alleged funding Clive

there is no evidence he "hates" anyone Clive.

on the one hand..we have someone like JC..who is a pacifist and doesn't want anyone being bombed..then on the other hand is such as people like you..who pick and choose which women + kids can be bombed and it deemed ok.

i know which i fnd the most hypocritical

every day you come out with same "brainwashed by the media" character assassination of someone..making sure you stick a few extra bits in to over egg the stuff you swallow.."quickly run"..."sought them out"....but you only do it about people you don't like..as soon as its someone you do like getting similar treatment..you either ignore it or defend it.

this trial by media of people is there for gullibles to soak it up..the media shapes people's minds and whips up hatred against whoever is the target of the month

you do get all heated about some proper nonsense imo..unless you are preparted to treat everyone the same as you are with JC ..then your view is just a slanted one...just wheeled out when it suits.
 
The conservative shift to the left has already happend ro some extent and is one of the reasons the party is doing so well, Warbler. Even before he became prime minster, he was trying to modernise the party, and that involved moving left in the direction of the centre. I thought this was a good idea at the time and so its proved to be. Having said that, he predictably went back into conservative terrortory when in power which I thought was a bit disingenius given he was preaching a message of social mobility before 2010. Anyway, If labour does annihilate itself as predicted then i suppose the tories can go and do whatever they want policy wise.
 
Last edited:
Osbournes only problem is that his obsession with the deficit will hinder a good recovery distributed across different classes and the North and South. Essentially Ed Balls is going to be proved right but years after his party lost an election and his own seat. Quite ironic really.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
alleged funding Clive

there is no evidence he "hates" anyone Clive.

on the one hand..we have someone like JC..who is a pacifist and doesn't want anyone being bombed..then on the other hand is such as people like you..who pick and choose which women + kids can be bombed and it deemed ok.

i know which i fnd the most hypocritical

every day you come out with same "brainwashed by the media" character assassination of someone..making sure you stick a few extra bits in to over egg the stuff you swallow.."quickly run"..."sought them out"....but you only do it about people you don't like..as soon as its someone you do like getting similar treatment..you either ignore it or defend it.

this trial by media of people is there for gullibles to soak it up..the media shapes people's minds and whips up hatred against whoever is the target of the month

you do get all heated about some proper nonsense imo..unless you are preparted to treat everyone the same as you are with JC ..then your view is just a slanted one...just wheeled out when it suits.
Click to expand...

thats a load of waffle

It goes without saying that if Cameron shared platforms with Ku klux klan members, funded David Irving and wrote letters in support of David Icke, he would be finished

Why should this worm get away with it?

If you support holocaust deniers you are a jew baiter. no more no less
 
where does it say he "supports" anyone Clive?

you assume that talking to someone is automatically supporting..whereas someone with an open mind might say..i want to know why people hold views like holocaust denying..well the only way to find out is to parlais with them.

Myself..i don't want to talk to them,,but i know you do get people like Corbyn..who want to..and he should have that right without being condemned without knowing what his aim is..and the press clearly don't..and neither do you

if he was ashamed of that he would make sure the press didn't find out

what you are saying is..anyone we don't agree with..we have to completely ignore them in your world or we must be supporters

on that footing..there would be no peace agreement would there?

In the Tory party when Thatcher was in charge..she knew some MP's were paedo's...did that make her a condoner of that behaviour then?

If he says he supports all these things..then i'll be the frist to condemn him..he hasn't said that though..its all assumption.

What you and the press do though is wrong
 
Last edited:
on the one hand..we have someone like JC..who is a pacifist and doesn't want anyone being bombed..then on the other hand is such as people like you..who pick and choose which women + kids can be bombed and it deemed ok.

beneath contempt and yet again you show your totally out of your depth. Hasnt occured to you that he could support palestinian organisations and irish nationialists who DIDNT bomb people did it? For someone who claims he against all bombing and a pacifist he made some pretty odd choices with hamas hezbollah and the ira didnt he?
 
.whereas someone with an open mind might say..i want to know why people hold views like holocaust denying..well the only way to find out is to parlais with them.

You are joking. Are you fcking mad or something

In the Tory party when Thatcher was in charge..she knew some MP's were paedo's...did that make her a condoner of that behaviour then?



Evidence?The parralell is absurd. But talking of paedos and islington council in the 70s....

What you and the press do though is wrong

So it would be wrong to highlight a story of Boris johnson sharing a platform with combat 18 then? ... unbelievable
 
Last edited:
i'm out of my depth?..ffs..no clive its you with your narrow blinkered mindset that is to be fair

you are there again.."support"..there is NO evidence he "supports" anyone.

you haven't really got a mind of your own Clive..you just spout the same old same old media brainwashed bile..biased when it suits too.
 
clivex said:
.whereas someone with an open mind might say..i want to know why people hold views like holocaust denying..well the only way to find out is to parlais with them.

You are joking. Are you fcking mad or something
Click to expand...

what are you talking about?

some people will talk with people about anything to find out just why they hold the beliefs they do..thats a fact..wouldn't be my choice. Some people talk to and study paedos to see why they are like they are..again..wouldn't be my choice..but its not mad..it happens.

having an enquiring mind doesn't make you agree with anything you come across..it just means you want to know the reason why.

like i say..if he ever says he agrees with these people..i'll be at front of queue to condemn..but you are denying people the right to talk by painting them with the same brush as those they talk to..thats narrow minded and a bit simple imo
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
i'm out of my depth?..ffs..no clive its you with your narrow blinkered mindset that is to be fair

you are there again.."support"..there is NO evidence he "supports" anyone.

you haven't really got a mind of your own Clive..you just spout the same old same old media brainwashed bile..biased when it suits too.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot frankly. You claim bias and yet wont answer your view this

So it would be wrong to highlight a story of Boris johnson sharing a platform with combat 18 then?

until you do then forget it and try and think before you post
 
EC1 said:
what are you talking about?

some people will talk with people about anything to find out just why they hold the beliefs they do..thats a fact..wouldn't be my choice. Some people talk to and study paedos to see why they are like they are..again..wouldn't be my choice..but its not mad..it happens.

having an enquiring mind doesn't make you agree with anything you come across..it just means you want to know the reason why.

like i say..if he ever says he agrees with these people..i'll be at front of queue to condemn..but you are denying people the right to talk by painting them with the same brush as those they talk to..thats narrow minded and a bit simple imo
Click to expand...

No. serious politicians do not give any time at all to these people. You think Cameron should invite the kkk to downing street to find out "why they think like that?" . furthermore he emphatically didnt talk to him as some case study. Read the detail before you spout off.
 
you are not only an idiot..you are a patronising tool..but i don't keep saying it every post

Of course the press can highlight Boris..thats what they do..i'd personally want to know more than that though..whereas you just make an assumption based on the association. I don't really care who talks to who about what..if i know what the reason is..you nor the press don't know what Corbyn has said to any of these people..you just assume he supports them by talking to them. What did they talk about Clive is the question.

Its this assumption to suit the slatings you hand out that i don't agree with. You only know half the picture.
 
clivex said:
No. serious politicians do not give any time at all to these people. You think Cameron should invite the kkk to downing street to find out "why they think like that?" . furthermore he emphatically didnt talk to him as some case study. Read the detail before you spout off.
Click to expand...

i've never mentioned case studies Clive...keeping an open mind to make a balanced decision is how some people operate..some people are like that. It may be he isn't Clive..it may be he completely supports these people..my argument with you is..you automatically assume its the latter..thats the issue here.
 
Last edited:
i'll tell you what Clive..with being so out of my depth with such a heavyweight as yourself..i'll do what 99% of the forum does about these type of threads..i won't bother posting on them any more. No skin off my nose that is a fact.
 
Last edited:
I want to see his shadow cabinet

A return to the fold for George Galloway perhaps as Foreign Secretary?
Dennis Skinner Trade and Industry
Diane Abbott as Chancellor
Ken Livingstone as Home Secretary

I like the looks of the dream team
 
Back
Top