The election 2015

So corbyn thinks the killing of bin laden is a "tragedy". Interesting use of words. Not a "mistake" or even "wrong" but something which obviously upset him. And he equates it to the 3000 killed in 9/11 too

what a piece of filth. His offices denail that he has sympathy for an is total garbage of course his use of that word is very very significant

also to come out I the press is his tweet congratulating Ken livingstine for "not sharing a platform with racists " when due to appear on some cross party forum with the bnp

yoj couldn't make this bigoted cretin up could you?
 
Last edited:
It's about interpretation and the context Clive. He said that the failure to take him alive was just another tragedy, as was the continued cycle of killing. It's more of a comment on a whole litany of inter-related tragedies and the language of an exasperated pacifist who is a bit too much of an idealist ("law not war" etc). I actually think the media is trying to make a bit too much of this and force a square peg into a round hole.

Personally I think we've passed that point (Corbyn's position) with some of the groups involved now, but that wasn't always the case, and that's the context of the tragedy. The west has made some monumental strategic errors (and for some very, very, bad reasons that have been laced with individual personal grievances allied with greed), so i don't think "tragedy" is necessarily over stating it.

He expanded on this by predicting that they'd kill Gadaffi and that this would only lead to more chaos. Well looks like he got that one wrong!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-9-11-mastermind-Osama-Bin-Laden-tragedy.html

If you look at what Seymour Hersch is currently unravelling however, there might be very good reasons why the American's needed to kill Bin Laden beyond the obvious. It seemingly points the finger at the Saudis again, who also welcomed his silence. He'd basically become expendable to the Pakistani's who cashed him in. Look how close the 2012 election was, and the timing of the raid. A politician using an incident to affect a temporary boost in poll ratings ahead of an election? Didn't help Sarkozy admittedly, but was a factor with 'Obama got Osama'

Mind you, at 7/2 in the betting now, we might have President Trump to sort it all out soon as he pushes the 40% mark
 
Last edited:
Rubbish warbler frankly

the word came straight to mind because of underlying sympathies. Hes also played up conspiracy theory drivel too.

I thught it it was pretty well known that Hersch is a joke? Yet again your anti Americanism blinds you to clear facts. They were abolsutely right to kill him because who the hell wanted a trial dragged out with all the crap that would go with it? Secondly it amazes me still taht you will not accept that bin ladens first priority, which he clearly stated himself, was to overthrow the Saudi regime so the idea that they were sponsoring him is madness
 
A pacifist? Who paid silent tribute to ira bombers? Who supports hezbollahs and Hamas terrorism? Who backs every military incursion by Putin.?

as I said, anyone who was only concerns with the rule of some supposed law and wished to see him stand trial would certainly not have used such a word.
 
At the end of the day Colin, this should matter to those that do not want a tory government. He is completely unelectable and Never will be, but the ultimate damage is being done to labour as a party, which I believe will go the way of the liberals in the early part of the last centruy

whatever happens from now on it will be seen as the party that elected someone with sinister and extreme views. Even if he's out within six months, it will stick. How do you think that a bin laden sympathiser will play with the average voter? No point in apologists trying to twist this. The words tragedy and bin laden will stick

Its future will be as a home for the losers, Islamists, bigots and social misfits. This is quite an event. The death of a major political party

rachel sylvesters piece (and she is left leaning) in the times today is spot on
 
Died in 1979?

in truth I think you have three parties in one. Obviously the modern labour wing, which like it or not, does and has won vote. The old labour working class vote which is still broadly patriotic and perhaps culturally conservative and the far left bigot haters who despise the west and it's values

first doesn't know where to turn. Second is drifting towards ukip in big numbers and third is taking over
 
The very name 'Labour' conjures up staid old images of fighting the good fight and red flags flying, so I for one have no problem with the movement being consigned to history. Refreshing in fact, with a new left-of-centre party encompassing 'new labour' and the all-but-defunct liberals with a third opposition comprising the Corbynite left and the SNP. I despise Nationalism with a vengeance but have to admit there's some damn good parliamentarians sitting on the SNP benches
 
Finding it hard to separate who was more irritating on Panorama, Corbyn or McCluskey. Think Len edges it.
 
I think it was actually the silly bastards who were laughing at McCluskey's horrible sentiments.

So outdated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Outdated is the word isnt it?

This is the beginning of the end of labour. Quite how Corbyn is going to appeal to the midlands and northern working class, who are probably more patriotic and certainly less islamist, i do not know. A leader who is a security risk? One who supports those who kill british soldiers? IRA and so on too?

As for the rest of the electorate, mcclusky and corbyns hatred of enterprise and the sheer will of individuals to better themselves is about as welcome as Jimmy Saville in a nursery

I think its pretty likely that labour will go down to the thrid party in terms of share of vote but I can also see a huge wipe out of seats. They deserve it too for the sheer stupidity and incompetence

But once further revelations about corbyns symapthies come out, backbenchers as well as leading figures who already despise him, will start kicking off once the polls go down to say less than 10%
 
No, I'm not so pessimistic, Clive, but that's because I usually vote Labour.

I don't like the direction Corbyn would take Labour, but his would inevitably be a short-lived reign. The Labour Party IS capable of reinvention, as we saw in 1992-94, and are still capable of being the party with the most seats in England (it happened as recently as 2001).

Don't forget, the Tories went 23 years without winning an overall majority at an election until this May, and had to transform themselves from being the 'Nasty Party' through to what they are now ie, the 'Not Very Nice Party'.
 
Yes. The key is to make sure hes thrown out before the election but the other side is that even after that event, they will still be seen as the party that elected an extremist. It will stick in the minds of voters and given that they need to win voters who voted tory in large numbers last time and frankly despise mcclusky and bin laden then its some uphill struggle. The party is tainted now as being in thrall of those who would not offer the nation security, do not understand economics and flirt with extreme religous fascists. In fact the times writer, who is soft left, summed it up perfectly. The Corbyn crowd have the total arrogance of the far left that they know whats best for everyone and only they know and a deep loathing of modern britain and the british

As i said before the government needs strong opposition regardless of allegiances. I am quite impressed by Cooper but Corbyn hasnt the mental cpapablity, zero imagination and would be ripped apart as a joke figure
 
Last edited:
Biggest act of political suicide since...

... I can't think of anything

the real issue here is that the tories will get lazy. There is zero chance of labour winning next election and I believe they could easily slip to being the third party on votes, but its far better for the country at large to have a credible opposition. Cameron and osbournes would not have relished facing cooper across the despatch box
 
Good for Corbyn. How his politcal theories are managed and implemented if he were in government...well....i have my questions. But he is leader and im certainly not a Blairite. He is principled which i like in this age of style and social punditry. Should be five entertaining years in the commons.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
Good for Corbyn. How his politcal theories are managed and implemented if he were in government...well....i have my questions. But he is leader and im certainly not a blairite.
Click to expand...

this label "blairite" is just student left wing drivel.

Frankly it it is what won three elections and even more so it is what the bulk of the electorate vote for. And no one can deny it worked . As we see on these threads,mthe far left always no what's best for everyone (despite them usually being smelly social misfits)

Of of course those in the Twitter bubble of moronic left wing drivel will believe that the electorate are wrong.

the electorate don't want minutes silences for terrorists and an economy of Venezuela. How stupid d of them

Blair won. what the hell is wrong with that?

to choose a feeble minded loser instead is progress? If I was anywhere on the left otehr than the bigoted thick headed wing, I would be livid about today
 
Last edited:
Im independant minded clivex. I supported cameron in 2010, and i ran for conservative council candidate because i was asked to in 08. However, i do not have hardened leftist blood in me...and hate left wing dogma. But as a voter i am fine with him leading that party. He does represent a wide segment of the public...which i fear has unfairly been shafted by new labour and now tory goverment rule. To argue why labour have appointed him if you and others are so sure he will lose...i dont get that....i dont know why you are so angry....he is just representing a segement of the public. That is democracy.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but he does not represent a wide segment of the public. And the public can decide that for themselves.

Anyone with basic intelligence knows full well that you cannot assist anyone at all in the country if you do not have a credible growing economy. His policies would are destructive by any measure

inflation is the one factor that hits the poor hardest. No doubt about that So what does he suggest ? Printing money regardless of the financial matrix with the absolute certainly that will drive inflation upwards and possibly out of control



he represents the childish eighties time warp protest movement.
 
Euronymous said:
Corbyn will never be elected because the majority of people are selfish dicks.
Click to expand...


losers in life just want everyone to be equally poor don't they?

the reason he will never be elected is because "selfish dicks" know full well that far left economics always fail. Every single time

Selfishly they believe that they don't wish tosee their wealth evaporate. Or maybe anyone else's to?

they also know that union dominated economies are a disaster. As is nationalisation.

They also selfishly believe that the country should be secure from terrorists

but I tell you something quite clearly. I would be far more worried for the less advantaged in life with a tanking economy driven downwards by dinosaur policies which have catastrophically failed and continue to do so in basket case States than under an administration that at least can deliver jobs and growth whatever their priorities may be.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
losers in life just want everyone to be equally poor don't they?
Click to expand...

Just a fair playing field really. We don't live in a meritocracy - a huge slice of wealthy people get that way because they have the advantages in early life. Look at Boris Johnson, he's borderline retarded but because he went to the best schools he's very wealthy.
 
Back
Top