Thursday 20h August 2015

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:08 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
citizenJA wrote:How many want coffee with their carrot cake?
How many for tea?
Think I'll have a coffee, for a change. Milky, please, but no sugar. I love carrot cake

Please enjoy, my friend.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:10 pm

Barbara Keeley retweeted
Central Lancs FOE ‏@CentralLancsFOE 42m42 minutes ago
Great news that Preston Council voted to oppose fracking on climate change grounds @prestonlabour @pcc_leader showing leadership on climate

Barbara Keeley retweeted
Peter Rankin ‏@pcc_leader 59m59 minutes ago Preston, England
@frackfreelancs Preston Council has just said 'no' to fracking. Every single Tory in favour of fracking.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:18 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Anne Begg retweeted
Jade Azim ‏@JadeFrancesAzim 2h2 hours ago
I can't wait to pick the next Green Party leader
I like the cut of her jib. (What is a jib?)

1) Flying-Jib
2) Jib
(Also the name for the projecting arm of a crane - the mechanical crane, not the bird. Birds don't have arms, usually...)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:23 pm

Why thank you Lady C.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:28 pm

Blimey, there seems a lot of hysteria around about people being rejected to vote.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:31 pm

Blimey 6.30 already! Popped back for another update but before reading your posts I note that I'm effing things up lately, what with my inability to pluralise handkerchief and now using half when halve was meant. Following on from someone feeling disgruntled this morning I have to say that I felt somewhat downhearted yesterday morn. I had an hour or so to kill in Burton-on-Trent yesterday so other than popping into Toys R Us, walked around the town centre (paid a high price with backache mind), something I've not done since my late wife. Okay it was Wednesday morning but I felt sorry for the shopworkers outnumbering potential customers, and the owners or proprietors I guess.

'And on the subject of toys, it being my grandaughters third in just over a month. What crap! I did notice one thing I considered but left it as not really suitable and certainly overpriced. Listen to me when as a salesman I'd often challenge the relatively wealthy over what they expected of production workers to live on. Anyway before leaving town and still having time on my car park ticket I returned and picked up said toy/game. I really wish I hadn't although it shall be vaguley entertaining and educational, but I thought it electronic not something with only eight game cards.

When my own kids were young I had the restoration and cabinet making workshop so made the odd wooden toy, including see-saws even a tree house. I was also asked to do some for the special unit my daughter attended, but never actually delivered because of regulations governing childrens' toys. Better safe than sorry. I also programmed the odd computer game with parental/teacher modes to vary the randomised selections. I am now thinking in terms of apps for little ones. We'll have to see because graphics requirements are so much more nowadays. Have I really got the time for giveaways? It's not as though I'm well off despite all I've been into.

Sorry for more anecdotal rubbish rather than politics. Let's see what the rest of you have been saying before I go.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:43 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think Raed Salah is what's going to really hurt Corbyn. Sure, the British Government's treatment of him was wrong (as the courts found) but he's a nasty bit of work.

Get too close to people like that, and you'll get bitten on the arse.
Are the right of the party still doing smear by assosciation. Desperate stuff, and rather counterproductive. I mean Blair has met with terrorists paedophiles and despots - Does that make him a despotic paedophile terrorist lover?

Get too close to people like that, and you'll get bitten on the arse.
So Jimmy Savile 20 odd years ago, when he was known primarily for raising millions for charity.
And two heads of government, unless I'm mistaken. Meeting them tends to come with the job of being head of government.

Do better.

Do Better?

I dont need to, you are the one trying to smear by assosciation, not me, I am siimply pointing out the stunning hypocrisy and double standards of such a position. YES politicians sometimes have to share platforms with odious people to get the jobs done. You are the one trying to make out that makes one unfit for office but another merely doing his job.

Although Tony's jolly big grin, and potential as aa war criminal repsonsible for the deaths of at least a quarter of a million people and the displacement of 6 times that amount as well as assosciating with paedophiles, terrorists and despots, and his subsequent money grasping brown nosing of any and every dictator who could fill hhis pockets makes him absolutely perfect in the eyes of some.

Face it, with Corbyn Labour stand a chance of survival; with any of the other three the party goes the way of PASOK. Im on a win win either way - Vote Corbyn and we get a genuine Labour party that many greens can support, or vote for the othher three and the greens hoover up the disaffected that dont leave for UKIP or Plaid in Wales. The blairite faction have now lost Scotland, much of the midlands, are starting to lose the north and wales, and have lost two elections on the trot. Learn from that rather than sneering, and smearing.

If Corbyn is so unelectable how come he is kicking the arses of the three electables in a democratic election?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:46 pm

yahyah wrote:Blimey, there seems a lot of hysteria around about people being rejected to vote.

I wonder when these angry rejected supporters signed up?

I joined directly after the election and hoped that it would be soon enough to enable me to vote in a leadership election, but would have understood if not. Although Labour should stick to the rules, is it really justified for people to be this upset at not getting a vote, if they had only joined at the 11th hour? And only paid £3?

My husband has been paying the political levy to Labour via his union for years. When contacted, he said he wanted to be signed up as an affiliated member to vote and has since had e-mails from leadership and deputy leadership contenders, so his details have clearly been passed on, but he hasn't received a ballot yet, or been rejected either. It's clear the period for signing up was extended because the unions were behindhand, but did they need to allow people to sign up for £3 until so close to the election opening? It strikes me that by not having a big enough gap between sign-ups closing and voting opening, processing an unexpected number of new supporters has led to mistakes, rather than anything underhand or malicious. Cock-up rather than conspiracy. Not that it's any less embarrassing for Labour, but it's not on the same scale as the kind of DWP cock-ups that leave people with nothing to live on for weeks at a time or DLA cock-ups that leave people unable to hire or legally drive a car. The lack of perspective on the part of the press during this Labour leadership election is really starting to wind me up

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:46 pm

@Tubby Isaacs

I'm sorry to disagree, Tubby, regarding Savile, but rumours abounded even then. Personally I always found him a bit creepy, not that I knew or even met him you understand.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:46 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Barbara Keeley retweeted
Central Lancs FOE ‏@CentralLancsFOE 42m42 minutes ago
Great news that Preston Council voted to oppose fracking on climate change grounds @prestonlabour @pcc_leader showing leadership on climate

Barbara Keeley retweeted
Peter Rankin ‏@pcc_leader 59m59 minutes ago Preston, England
@frackfreelancs Preston Council has just said 'no' to fracking. Every single Tory in favour of fracking.

Good news.

The Tories have the capacity to lose loads of council seats with fracking.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:52 pm

utopiandreams wrote:@Tubby Isaacs

I'm sorry to disagree, Tubby, regarding Savile, but rumours abounded even then. Personally I always found him a bit creepy, not that I knew or even met him you understand.

There were. But he got his knighthood, and was a very active fundraiser. And he didn't accuse Jews of carrying out 9/11.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:54 pm

Is anyone else here feeling a little sorry for SpinningHugo? I though that his latest (I think) post was rather sad - poignant (TM), even.

I think some people (I was very offended, I admit) took agin him in a big way as a result of his unfelicitous (to put it mildly) remarks in the immediate aftermath of the General Election.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 6:59 pm

PorFavor wrote:Is anyone else here feeling a little sorry for SpinningHugo? I though that his latest (I think) post was rather sad - poignant (TM), even.

I think some people (I was very offended, I admit) took agin him in a big way as a result of his unfelicitous (to put it mildly) remarks in the immediate aftermath of the General Election.

Maybe I was being a bit hard on him but that post this morning of merely dumping two links without comment seemed to me to be a bit insulting to people here - this place relies on dialogue and just posting links and then going off again isn't the best way of achieving that.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:04 pm

@Tubby

Some thing are completely unacceptable and we're not just speaking of being misguided. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive on that score having been abused as a child, but let's not go there.

Edit: corrected mistaken to misguided

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:08 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Is anyone else here feeling a little sorry for SpinningHugo? I though that his latest (I think) post was rather sad - poignant (TM), even.

I think some people (I was very offended, I admit) took agin him in a big way as a result of his unfelicitous (to put it mildly) remarks in the immediate aftermath of the General Election.
Maybe I was being a bit hard on him but that post this morning of merely dumping two links without comment seemed to me to be a bit insulting to people here - this place relies on dialogue and just posting links and then going off again isn't the best way of achieving that.

To be fair, Roger, I've done so myself on occasion when I've been rushed although I can't speak for Hugo. Sometimes I fell we should all calm down if you don't mind my saying. Then again I've had a verbal argument myself today and that was face to face!

Post by **refitman** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:16 pm

I have cast my votes.

Leader:
1. Burnham
2. Corbyn

Deputy:
1. Eagle
2. Creasy
3. Watson

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:18 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Do Better?

I dont need to, you are the one trying to smear by assosciation, not me, I am siimply pointing out the stunning hypocrisy and double standards of such a position. YES politicians sometimes have to share platforms with odious people to get the jobs done. You are the one trying to make out that makes one unfit for office but another merely doing his job.

Although Tony's jolly big grin, and potential as aa war criminal repsonsible for the deaths of at least a quarter of a million people and the displacement of 6 times that amount as well as assosciating with paedophiles, terrorists and despots, and his subsequent money grasping brown nosing of any and every dictator who could fill hhis pockets makes him absolutely perfect in the eyes of some.

Face it, with Corbyn Labour stand a chance of survival; with any of the other three the party goes the way of PASOK. Im on a win win either way - Vote Corbyn and we get a genuine Labour party that many greens can support, or vote for the othher three and the greens hoover up the disaffected that dont leave for UKIP or Plaid in Wales. The blairite faction have now lost Scotland, much of the midlands, are starting to lose the north and wales, and have lost two elections on the trot. Learn from that rather than sneering, and smearing.

If Corbyn is so unelectable how come he is kicking the arses of the three electables in a democratic election?

It's not "guilt by association" if I'm talking about Corbyn doing the associating, is it? Nobody ever explains what the "job" Corbyn was getting done. It's all "talking to bring about peace" bollocks. It's a pointless photo-op for all concerned, including Corbyn.

If you can't see the difference between that and a head of government meeting others, I give up.

Tony's jolly big grin, and potential as aa war criminal repsonsible for the deaths of at least a quarter of a million people and the displacement of 6 times that amount

Blair's beyond the pale in electoral terms, precisely because of Iraq, quite rightly. But no need to talk bollocks about Blair's role, eh?

PASOK? Come on. Not even the biggest Tory "Brown bankrupted us" loon could claim Labour were anything like PASOK.

And you don't get Scotland right either. The SNP got where they are on a low tax, right of Labour platform, and then adroitly changed leaders and nicked Labour policies.

I've said plenty of policy stuff against Corbyn. Want another one? Support for an EU referendum is awful judgement. Remember that as the inevitably awful campaign unfolds. And that Corbyn or whoever is "putting forward a progressive case" doesn't get him off the hook.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:19 pm

utopiandreams wrote:@Tubby

Some thing are completely unacceptable and we're not just speaking of being misguided. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive on that score having been abused as a child, but let's not go there.

Edit: corrected mistaken to misguided

You're not being misguided at all. I just think that most people distanced from it assumed that Savile had been cleared.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:20 pm

@refitman

I can't quite bring myself to make a final decision on the leadership.

Edited

Making? I meant make, of course

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:23 pm

Why's Corbyn winning?

These things happen in internal elections. And he's being crudely populist.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:30 pm

I've got to confess that I'm beginning to empathise with those that cried Project Fear over the media treatment of the indy ref (runs for cover).

We are living through Project Smear ... and I can see no end to it. The more I read the more it tips me towards voting for Corbyn ... out of sheer fury and the weirdest urge to try and make sure that if Corbyn is going to win - he does so by a real stonking majority that can't be just ignored, overturned or called illegitimate - one that makes it clear a lot of longstanding members voted for him.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:32 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Are the right of the party still doing smear by assosciation. Desperate stuff, and rather counterproductive. I mean Blair has met with terrorists paedophiles and despots - Does that make him a despotic paedophile terrorist lover?

Get too close to people like that, and you'll get bitten on the arse.
So Jimmy Savile 20 odd years ago, when he was known primarily for raising millions for charity.
And two heads of government, unless I'm mistaken. Meeting them tends to come with the job of being head of government.

Do better.
Do Better?

I dont need to, you are the one trying to smear by assosciation, not me, I am siimply pointing out the stunning hypocrisy and double standards of such a position. YES politicians sometimes have to share platforms with odious people to get the jobs done. You are the one trying to make out that makes one unfit for office but another merely doing his job.

Although Tony's jolly big grin, and potential as aa war criminal repsonsible for the deaths of at least a quarter of a million people and the displacement of 6 times that amount as well as assosciating with paedophiles, terrorists and despots, and his subsequent money grasping brown nosing of any and every dictator who could fill hhis pockets makes him absolutely perfect in the eyes of some.

Face it, with Corbyn Labour stand a chance of survival; with any of the other three the party goes the way of PASOK. Im on a win win either way - Vote Corbyn and we get a genuine Labour party that many greens can support, or vote for the othher three and the greens hoover up the disaffected that dont leave for UKIP or Plaid in Wales. The blairite faction have now lost Scotland, much of the midlands, are starting to lose the north and wales, and have lost two elections on the trot. Learn from that rather than sneering, and smearing.

If Corbyn is so unelectable how come he is kicking the arses of the three electables in a democratic election?

It is quite hard to put into words how hopeless I think that whole argument is but I will try.

Firstly the whole Blair war criminal thing is juvenile, unless you can show he deliberately ordered the mass murder of men women and children it just cheapens the label of war criminal - see the Rwandan government, Hitler, Stalin, the recent Sri Lankan military, The Serbian nationalists (Corbyn also spoke out in opposition to intervention in Kosovo).

Secondly old pictures of Blair with a charity fund raiser, who I doubt Blair would have heard rumours about at the time, and two world leaders, one of whom was rather better for Libya than Cameron's alternative, is not relevant to the central argument that Corbyn's poor judgement on his associates is going to be used against him. It is, it is gold dust for the right, and it will be used to turn off moderate swing voters in their millions.

As for the idea that winning an election with a self selecting electorate of 1% of the population (a chunk of whom are voting for you because they believe you are an electoral disaster), is in any way relevant to a candidates ability to appeal to the other 99% of the country; that doesn't pass any sort of muster.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:36 pm

PorFavor wrote:Is anyone else here feeling a little sorry for SpinningHugo? I though that his latest (I think) post was rather sad - poignant (TM), even.

I think some people (I was very offended, I admit) took agin him in a big way as a result of his unfelicitous (to put it mildly) remarks in the immediate aftermath of the General Election.

There was a poster on CIF called Laverda, always going on about how Gordon Brown sold all the gold. Ukip could have been made for them

. Anyway, although I didn't agree with hardly anything they said, they did appear to be a genuine person saying what they genuinely thought, rather than a troll, so I found their posts interesting from the point of view of what they could show me of other people's thinking. I pretty much view SH the same way. I certainly don't take anything they say personally and skip their posts when not in the mood. If a poster's comments are often somewhat terse, I wouldn't lose any sleep over being a bit terse back.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:38 pm

Jeremy Corbyn is no Trotskyist, Tom Watson insists
Candidate for Labour’s deputy leadership says contest to lead the party has been overdramatised and all four candidates have a lot in common
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... on-insists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Liz Kendall is not a Tory and Jeremy Corbyn is not a Trotskyist,” he said. “This language of morons and viruses is totally unhelpful. What they have in common is that they want a more socially just country and they don’t want enshrined privilege. They all four of them don’t want a Tory government.”

The senior Labour MP played down alarmist warnings from the Blairite wing of the party about a Corbyn leadership and urged the parliamentary party to accept whoever the membership chose on 12 September.

He added that Labour members did not like being told who not to vote for and called on the parliamentary party to see the leadership contest as exciting, rather than being frightened of debate.

Thank you TW.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:39 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I've got to confess that I'm beginning to empathise with those that cried Project Fear over the media treatment of the indy ref (runs for cover).

We are living through Project Smear ... and I can see no end to it. The more I read the more it tips me towards voting for Corbyn ... out of sheer fury and the weirdest urge to try and make sure that if Corbyn is going to win - he does so by a real stonking majority that can't be just ignored, overturned or called illegitimate - one that makes it clear a lot of longstanding members voted for him.

The No Campaign in the indyref was doubtless very badly conducted. But this (and probably worse) is what would be facing Scotland now.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Kj8-nF9h1jg/V ... ficits.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ie the worst deficit in Europe, and twice the size of the UK's.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:41 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@Tubby

Some thing are completely unacceptable and we're not just speaking of being misguided. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive on that score having been abused as a child, but let's not go there.

Edit: corrected mistaken to misguided
You're not being misguided at all. I just think that most people distanced from it assumed that Savile had been cleared.

Sorry for not being clearer, Tubby although I thanked you. I was actually referring those who did wrong. When it comes to politics or militarism, it pains me to say that those with power see others as expendable. Abusing kiddies has no excuse whatsoever even if a lesser crime in some regards. Change of subject perhaps; got to go eat anyway.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:42 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@Tubby Isaacs

I'm sorry to disagree, Tubby, regarding Savile, but rumours abounded even then. Personally I always found him a bit creepy, not that I knew or even met him you understand.
There were. But he got his knighthood, and was a very active fundraiser. And he didn't accuse Jews of carrying out 9/11.

No he didn't make a stupid and ignorant comment regarding 9/11 but he abused hundreds of children, pretty much the worst that there has ever been.....go figure which is the worst

And the establishment has been very much aware of Savile for years but it was only the BBC that was hung out to dry

Of all the arguments against Corbyn I find this the weakest......

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:45 pm

refitman wrote:I have cast my votes.

Leader:
1. Burnham
2. Corbyn

Deputy:
1. Eagle
2. Creasy
3. Watson

I went for Burnham and Eagle as well.

I read an article somewhere which suggested the leader should have been elected first with the deputy choice coming after when voters knew what leader the deputy would complement and I rather agree. If Corbyn and Watson win it's all going to feel a bit 'blokey' to me. Oh well.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:47 pm

Talking of sixty-six-year old lefties who went on lots of marches, joined CND when God was a girl, and have generally been stroppy buggers all their naturals......I give you The Showmaster!

(Who is, actually, 67. But only just)

He is now ensconced in a whizzy (he says) does-everything-but-make-the-tea bed in the High Dependency Vascular Unit.
He himself is pretty whizzy - I blame the morphine.
He has had his surgery, which was changed this morning (yes, we are on Plan E).
He'll be in HDU for at least 24 hours, and probably not home till next week.

Thanks to all for the kind wishes, and I'll pass them on when I speak to him tomorrow.

According to the nurse looking after him, the first thing he said when he came to was "What's the cricket score?"
When I told her what it was, she said she'll maybe tell him in the morning.....

I hope Mr.OhSo and Ms.HindleA are OK. I've been thinking of them.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:54 pm

Larry Elliott puts it quite well.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nomy-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As soon as the new leader is announced, the Conservatives will unleash political blitzkrieg, an attempt to deliver an early knockout blow to Ed Miliband’s successor – whoever it is – by questioning their economic competence. Corbyn needs to be ready for this, because unless the details of his economic policy stack up, he won’t get a hearing for his big-picture analysis.

I think "big picture" analysis is putting it a bit kindly. It looks incredibly thin. Where for instance does this rebirth in manufacturing come from, for instance?

Elliott might be overestimating the importance of Defence to manufacturing. Corbyn could cut that, I reckon.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:56 pm

PorFavor wrote:Is anyone else here feeling a little sorry for SpinningHugo?

No.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 7:57 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: So Jimmy Savile 20 odd years ago, when he was known primarily for raising millions for charity.
And two heads of government, unless I'm mistaken. Meeting them tends to come with the job of being head of government.

Do better.
Do Better?

I dont need to, you are the one trying to smear by assosciation, not me, I am siimply pointing out the stunning hypocrisy and double standards of such a position. YES politicians sometimes have to share platforms with odious people to get the jobs done. You are the one trying to make out that makes one unfit for office but another merely doing his job.

Although Tony's jolly big grin, and potential as aa war criminal repsonsible for the deaths of at least a quarter of a million people and the displacement of 6 times that amount as well as assosciating with paedophiles, terrorists and despots, and his subsequent money grasping brown nosing of any and every dictator who could fill hhis pockets makes him absolutely perfect in the eyes of some.

Face it, with Corbyn Labour stand a chance of survival; with any of the other three the party goes the way of PASOK. Im on a win win either way - Vote Corbyn and we get a genuine Labour party that many greens can support, or vote for the othher three and the greens hoover up the disaffected that dont leave for UKIP or Plaid in Wales. The blairite faction have now lost Scotland, much of the midlands, are starting to lose the north and wales, and have lost two elections on the trot. Learn from that rather than sneering, and smearing.

If Corbyn is so unelectable how come he is kicking the arses of the three electables in a democratic election?
It is quite hard to put into words how hopeless I think that whole argument is but I will try.

Firstly the whole Blair war criminal thing is juvenile, unless you can show he deliberately ordered the mass murder of men women and children it just cheapens the label of war criminal - see the Rwandan government, Hitler, Stalin, the recent Sri Lankan military, The Serbian nationalists (Corbyn also spoke out in opposition to intervention in Kosovo).

Secondly old pictures of Blair with a charity fund raiser, who I doubt Blair would have heard rumours about at the time, and two world leaders, one of whom was rather better for Libya than Cameron's alternative, is not relevant to the central argument that Corbyn's poor judgement on his associates is going to be used against him. It is, it is gold dust for the right, and it will be used to turn off moderate swing voters in their millions.

As for the idea that winning an election with a self selecting electorate of 1% of the population (a chunk of whom are voting for you because they believe you are an electoral disaster), is in any way relevant to a candidates ability to appeal to the other 99% of the country; that doesn't pass any sort of muster.

I am perfectly aware that you and Tubby think those of us who do not consider a Corbyn victory as being stupid and supporting of a man who is in cahoots with various mass murderers and terrorists

I do not know why you keep absolving Tony Blair though - no-one realistically thinks that he is going to be tried as a war criminal but I despise him for what he did in Iraq and the way he justified it....using false intelligence and being a patsy for the Americans. The was never any justification for attacking Iraq as a response to 9/11 (but it appears the ridiculous accusation that it was the 'Jews that did it' is worse than the attacking of a country that was about as much involved as they were) and he is at the very least partly responsible for the chaos that happened after

He has not exactly helped the situation in the Middle East since then has he...what level of misjudgement was it that made him accept this role and then his choice of friends has been far from good

I despise him because he gave us some hope and did some good things but his legacy has been destroyed by him and his supporters. Iraq was the first part of this and now the pretty explicit support for the Tory Government and the undermining of Miliband - the man who could have been the PM we wanted

Stop telling us why we are stupid for even considering Corbyn is a plausible candidate and make a positive case for the others, and convince us. None of us are dyed in the wool Corbyn supporters but when his opposition has performed so badly then are we supposed to just go for the 'continuity establishment' candidate and play it safe in the hope the electorate finally come to their senses

I have no confidence that the three other candidates would reach out to the left if elected....Burnham may but he needs to show some passion. I also have no confidence the bloody Great British Public will desert Toryism either

We need, as we say in change management, a 'disruptor' - at the moment he is the only one. We need a fundamental change of the direction of politics and a dull, uninspired Labour Party is the last thing we need. We could wait until there is a 'burning platform' but that assumes the electorate spot it being there and care even if they do!

Corbyn will not win this election, the Labour Party establishment will have lost it........and the bloody well deserve to.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:00 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Jeremy Corbyn is no Trotskyist, Tom Watson insists
Candidate for Labour’s deputy leadership says contest to lead the party has been overdramatised and all four candidates have a lot in common
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... on-insists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Liz Kendall is not a Tory and Jeremy Corbyn is not a Trotskyist,” he said. “This language of morons and viruses is totally unhelpful. What they have in common is that they want a more socially just country and they don’t want enshrined privilege. They all four of them don’t want a Tory government.”

The senior Labour MP played down alarmist warnings from the Blairite wing of the party about a Corbyn leadership and urged the parliamentary party to accept whoever the membership chose on 12 September.

He added that Labour members did not like being told who not to vote for and called on the parliamentary party to see the leadership contest as exciting, rather than being frightened of debate.
Thank you TW.

Oh, yes.
Thank you, sincerely.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:03 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Do Better?

I dont need to, you are the one trying to smear by assosciation, not me, I am siimply pointing out the stunning hypocrisy and double standards of such a position. YES politicians sometimes have to share platforms with odious people to get the jobs done. You are the one trying to make out that makes one unfit for office but another merely doing his job.

Although Tony's jolly big grin, and potential as aa war criminal repsonsible for the deaths of at least a quarter of a million people and the displacement of 6 times that amount as well as assosciating with paedophiles, terrorists and despots, and his subsequent money grasping brown nosing of any and every dictator who could fill hhis pockets makes him absolutely perfect in the eyes of some.

Face it, with Corbyn Labour stand a chance of survival; with any of the other three the party goes the way of PASOK. Im on a win win either way - Vote Corbyn and we get a genuine Labour party that many greens can support, or vote for the othher three and the greens hoover up the disaffected that dont leave for UKIP or Plaid in Wales. The blairite faction have now lost Scotland, much of the midlands, are starting to lose the north and wales, and have lost two elections on the trot. Learn from that rather than sneering, and smearing.

If Corbyn is so unelectable how come he is kicking the arses of the three electables in a democratic election?
It's not "guilt by association" if I'm talking about Corbyn doing the associating, is it? Nobody ever explains what the "job" Corbyn was getting done. It's all "talking to bring about peace" bollocks. It's a pointless photo-op for all concerned, including Corbyn.

If you can't see the difference between that and a head of government meeting others, I give up.

Tony's jolly big grin, and potential as aa war criminal repsonsible for the deaths of at least a quarter of a million people and the displacement of 6 times that amount
Blair's beyond the pale in electoral terms, precisely because of Iraq, quite rightly. But no need to talk bollocks about Blair's role, eh?

PASOK? Come on. Not even the biggest Tory "Brown bankrupted us" loon could claim Labour were anything like PASOK.

And you don't get Scotland right either. The SNP got where they are on a low tax, right of Labour platform, and then adroitly changed leaders and nicked Labour policies.

I've said plenty of policy stuff against Corbyn. Want another one? Support for an EU referendum is awful judgement. Remember that as the inevitably awful campaign unfolds. And that Corbyn or whoever is "putting forward a progressive case" doesn't get him off the hook.

LOL Yeah thats right, because all the scots who left Labour because they had become 'Red Tories' would have stayed with them had they had a more right wing platform. That is truly cognative dissonance of the most ludicrous. The SNP got where they are because Labour completely ignored their traditional voters, because they wrongly believed those voters had nowhere to go. How is Burnham or Cooper of god forbid Kendall going to win them back? Or have you simply given up on Scotland? Do you think Labour can win bu the 12% swing they would need in England alone?

Without Scotland, Labour will never win another election. Only Corbyn can win you back seats there. The others will merely hasten the end of the union, because they represent everything the voters of Scotland have rejected.

You have lost some of the historically safest labour seats in Wales. How are you going to get them back? Tory lite really isnt going to do it, Tory lite has now lost you those seats.

And I never said New Labour were as bad as PASOK I said they would go the way of PASOK, Should I have said the dodo? Political parties have no right to exist without the support of their members. When the membership lose faith the party is over. It happened to the Liberals in this country and it can happen to Labour too.

You have lost 5 million voters since 1997, lost two elections since 2010, lost the scottish heartlands, and are starting to lose the welsh heartlands. YOu havent lost those places or votes for being too left wing, you have lost them as you jettisoned your principles and became indistinguishable from the tories to many many people in this country. How much more have you got to lose before the Blairites accept the project is finished?

And talking to bring about peace is bollucks in your view? That really does sum up New Labour.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:05 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Larry Elliott puts it quite well.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nomy-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As soon as the new leader is announced, the Conservatives will unleash political blitzkrieg, an attempt to deliver an early knockout blow to Ed Miliband’s successor – whoever it is – by questioning their economic competence. Corbyn needs to be ready for this, because unless the details of his economic policy stack up, he won’t get a hearing for his big-picture analysis.
I think "big picture" analysis is putting it a bit kindly. It looks incredibly thin. Where for instance does this rebirth in manufacturing come from, for instance?

Elliott might be overestimating the importance of Defence to manufacturing. Corbyn could cut that, I reckon.

Cos the Tories are so bloody great at economics aren't they!

I am fed up of this crap - the ones that are destroying the economy are the right wingers....not the left but suddenly it is incumbent for the Labour Party leader to be held up as having the answers almost 5 years from the next election.

Why is it wrong to aspire to more manufacturing.....it will take a generation to get us back thanks to the destruction started in the Thatcher years (and I am sorry to say little helped by Blair....another thing the Tories throw back as us continually)

He shouldn't engage with them....attack back and hard

I thing the British Public is too thick, ignorant and disinterested to be honest.......it is their chance to prove me wrong

We have to get people emotionally engaged and give them some hope.......the best policies are far to the left of where the Tories are and I think Corbyn is more capable of moving slightly right than the Crazy Gang moving anywhere to the left....oh and he can go after the media as well. Point out who are the ones that are attacking him and what he would do to curb their power!

I repeat the words of the great and noble Riff-Raff

'It is just a jump to the left and then a step to the right'

Far too often recently we have got the words mixed up!

Edited to say the 'Crazy Gang' are the Tories not the other leadership candidates....but then they show no inclination to 'jump to the left' either - perhaps a little twitch but then go back when the establishment gets at them

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:13 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@Tubby Isaacs

I'm sorry to disagree, Tubby, regarding Savile, but rumours abounded even then. Personally I always found him a bit creepy, not that I knew or even met him you understand.
There were. But he got his knighthood, and was a very active fundraiser. And he didn't accuse Jews of carrying out 9/11.

No he didn't make a stupid and ignorant comment regarding 9/11 but he abused hundreds of children, pretty much the worst that there has ever been.....go figure which is the worst

And the establishment has been very much aware of Savile for years but it was only the BBC that was hung out to dry

Of all the arguments against Corbyn I find this the weakest......

It wasn't "known" Savile had abused hundreds of children then, was it? That's the difference.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:22 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: There were. But he got his knighthood, and was a very active fundraiser. And he didn't accuse Jews of carrying out 9/11.

No he didn't make a stupid and ignorant comment regarding 9/11 but he abused hundreds of children, pretty much the worst that there has ever been.....go figure which is the worst

And the establishment has been very much aware of Savile for years but it was only the BBC that was hung out to dry

Of all the arguments against Corbyn I find this the weakest......
It wasn't "known" Savile had abused hundreds of children then, was it? That's the difference.

What was known? Who knows what the establishment knew...it seems they knew a lot about a lot of things but it was swept under the carpet and it is only now some of it is starting to emerge

I find that the idea that a man could do this for so long without people knowing something pretty unbelievable.....and this has nothing to do with Corbyn but I think any politician shown with Savile is guilty of a massive error of judgement

In the end though it is pointless discussing this - I have an open mind on the leadership contest and just want to see someone attacking the bastards in power rather than nodding like a Lib Dem

My point though is:

Miliband was the leader we could have had to take us where we want to be
He was stabbed in the back by the right wing of the party who could not wait to blame him and the 'leftishness' of his policies for his defeat
The three other candidates all started out on a 'continuity bland' strategy

Corbyn is not to blame for any of that....if you, TE and Hugo want to take out your frustration then blame those who did that rather than the rest of us who are fed up of being taken for granted and no longer want to accept the political status quo where we have 3 'main' English parties spouting the same crap

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:32 pm

Temulkar wrote:
LOL Yeah thats right, because all the scots who left Labour because they had become 'Red Tories' would have stayed with them had they had a more right wing platform. That is truly cognative dissonance of the most ludicrous. The SNP got where they are because Labour completely ignored their traditional voters, because they wrongly believed those voters had nowhere to go. How is Burnham or Cooper of god forbid Kendall going to win them back? Or have you simply given up on Scotland? Do you think Labour can win bu the 12% swing they would need in England alone?

Without Scotland, Labour will never win another election. Only Corbyn can win you back seats there. The others will merely hasten the end of the union, because they represent everything the voters of Scotland have rejected.

You have lost some of the historically safest labour seats in Wales. How are you going to get them back? Tory lite really isnt going to do it, Tory lite has now lost you those seats.

And I never said New Labour were as bad as PASOK I said they would go the way of PASOK, Should I have said the dodo? Political parties have no right to exist without the support of their members. When the membership lose faith the party is over. It happened to the Liberals in this country and it can happen to Labour too.

You have lost 5 million voters since 1997, lost two elections since 2010, lost the scottish heartlands, and are starting to lose the welsh heartlands. YOu havent lost those places or votes for being too left wing, you have lost them as you jettisoned your principles and became indistinguishable from the tories to many many people in this country. How much more have you got to lose before the Blairites accept the project is finished?

And talking to bring about peace is bollucks in your view? That really does sum up New Labour.

I'm not "New Labour". Guilt by association- is it different when you do it? And don't act like only Corbynites and Lucas and all have principles either.

You're basically writing up SNP rhetoric there. How they won power is a matter of record. Look at their actions in 2007-11. Look at the platform in the Indyref. Look at them now too. It's not all that good- and questions are batted away by blaming "Westminster". It's more than a little like UKIP, and not very leftwing at all.

And I didn't say trying to bring about peace was bollocks. I said Corbyn doing it with people who aren't interested in it was bollocks. A photo-op for all concerned that does nothing but irritate lots of other people who support peace and oppose Israel just as much as he does.

It's all a matter of conjecture, but I see the Miliband platform as having been about right, but undermined by a leader the public never took too and some poor messaging on the core issue of austerity. Plus of course flagrant lies by the Greens, Plaid and SNP. I think a different leader, who has more time to get the measure of Sturgeon, and we're competitive again, while the Tories mess up over the EU Referendum (and other chickens coming home to roost).

PASOK got 4.7% last time. Because they aren't at all like Labour, and not worth mentioning.

Been to Gower lately? It's pretty gentrified.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:35 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: Corbyn is not to blame for any of that....if you, TE and Hugo want to take out your frustration then blame those who did that rather than the rest of us who are fed up of being taken for granted and no longer want to accept the political status quo where we have 3 'main' English parties spouting the same crap

Per the IFS, biggest fiscal difference between the parties in the last election since 1992. And the SNP were more austere than Labour.

There was a danger that Kendall could make Labour very similar to the Tories, but she's tailed off last.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:37 pm

Friends, Assorted Lefties, Countrymen (and others).
I don't want anyone else to leave. I like reading what range of views we have left after the post-GE flounceathon.
If someone's annoying me I just don't read the posts (unless I'm riled up and the red mist wants a look in) - and would hope others do the same when I'm in annoying mode (yes - it has been known!)

Works a treat.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:41 pm

The "leftwing" SNP:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3159791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A BILLION pounds of anti-poverty measures has been diverted by the Scottish Government to patch over local authority cuts and subsidise handouts for the wealthiest Scots, a new Labour-commissioned report is to claim.

In a controversial review of Scottish public spending, the paper by finance expert Professor Arthur Midwinter concludes the SNP government “no longer has an anti-poverty programme” and says giveaways to the middle classes and high earners should be reduced to target help at the most needy.

Commissioned by Labour, sure, but the SNP aren't going to stick this up on their website.

It's a con. High profile universals paid for by raiding targeted stuff below the radar, and telling the poor that it's Westminster's fault and telling the middle class how good and Scottish and generous they are while they get their freebies.

It's cynical and nasty, and pretty much as good a working example of Red Toryism you could get.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:42 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
LOL Yeah thats right, because all the scots who left Labour because they had become 'Red Tories' would have stayed with them had they had a more right wing platform. That is truly cognative dissonance of the most ludicrous. The SNP got where they are because Labour completely ignored their traditional voters, because they wrongly believed those voters had nowhere to go. How is Burnham or Cooper of god forbid Kendall going to win them back? Or have you simply given up on Scotland? Do you think Labour can win bu the 12% swing they would need in England alone?

Without Scotland, Labour will never win another election. Only Corbyn can win you back seats there. The others will merely hasten the end of the union, because they represent everything the voters of Scotland have rejected.

You have lost some of the historically safest labour seats in Wales. How are you going to get them back? Tory lite really isnt going to do it, Tory lite has now lost you those seats.

And I never said New Labour were as bad as PASOK I said they would go the way of PASOK, Should I have said the dodo? Political parties have no right to exist without the support of their members. When the membership lose faith the party is over. It happened to the Liberals in this country and it can happen to Labour too.

You have lost 5 million voters since 1997, lost two elections since 2010, lost the scottish heartlands, and are starting to lose the welsh heartlands. YOu havent lost those places or votes for being too left wing, you have lost them as you jettisoned your principles and became indistinguishable from the tories to many many people in this country. How much more have you got to lose before the Blairites accept the project is finished?

And talking to bring about peace is bollucks in your view? That really does sum up New Labour.
I'm not "New Labour". Guilt by association- is it different when you do it? And don't act like only Corbynites and Lucas and all have principles either.

You're basically writing up SNP rhetoric there. How they won power is a matter of record. Look at their actions in 2007-11. Look at the platform in the Indyref. Look at them now too. It's not all that good- and questions are batted away by blaming "Westminster". It's more than a little like UKIP, and not very leftwing at all.

And I didn't say trying to bring about peace was bollocks. I said someone Corbyn doing it with people who aren't interested in it was bollocks. A photo-op for all concerned that does nothing but irritate lots of other people who support peace and oppose Israel just as much as he does.

It's all a matter of conjecture, but I see the Miliband platform as having been about right, but undermined by a leader the public never took too and some poor messaging on the core issue of austerity. Plus of course flagrant lies by the Greens, Plaid and SNP. I think a different leader, who has more time to get the measure of Sturgeon, and we're competitive again, while the Tories mess up over the EU Referendum (and other chickens coming home to roost).

Been to Gower lately? It's pretty gentrified.

Tubby I agree with you on the 'reality' of the SNP but people are basing it on what they perceive the SNP to be, and to be fair it isn't that hard to blame Westminster with the current bunch of cowboys in power

However, the problem is that it is going to take a long time to shine some truth on the SNP myth - not by 2016 and not by 2020 so, as said by Temulkar, the likelihood is that there will be a Tory Government in 2020 unless there is something major that happens. I think we are looking at preparing for 2025 and what party it is we want for them

I think this is where the fundamental difference is; you think that 2020 is a possible win by playing it safe and chipping away at the Tories. The big disruption will come from something that pulls the wool away from the eyes of the electorate. I, on the other hand, think that if we do that then we will lose in 2020 and the party will then drift further to the right after that and we end up with a US two right-wing parties - one being more palatable as the other but still far to the right of sanity. In this case we need to take a risk and cause a disruption such as having Corbyn

Who is right...I can't say but only one gets me enticed and passionate. Miliband did at times as well and he was sold down the river by his own party as much as by the opposition.....the same people who are still floating about in positions of influence and who need culling as soon as possible.....

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:43 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Larry Elliott puts it quite well.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nomy-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As soon as the new leader is announced, the Conservatives will unleash political blitzkrieg, an attempt to deliver an early knockout blow to Ed Miliband’s successor – whoever it is – by questioning their economic competence. Corbyn needs to be ready for this, because unless the details of his economic policy stack up, he won’t get a hearing for his big-picture analysis.
I think "big picture" analysis is putting it a bit kindly. It looks incredibly thin. Where for instance does this rebirth in manufacturing come from, for instance?

Elliott might be overestimating the importance of Defence to manufacturing. Corbyn could cut that, I reckon.

Cos the Tories are so bloody great at economics aren't they!

I am fed up of this crap - the ones that are destroying the economy are the right wingers....not the left but suddenly it is incumbent for the Labour Party leader to be held up as having the answers almost 5 years from the next election.

Why is it wrong to aspire to more manufacturing.....it will take a generation to get us back thanks to the destruction started in the Thatcher years (and I am sorry to say little helped by Blair....another thing the Tories throw back as us continually)

He shouldn't engage with them....attack back and hard

I thing the British Public is too thick, ignorant and disinterested to be honest.......it is their chance to prove me wrong

We have to get people emotionally engaged and give them some hope.......the best policies are far to the left of where the Tories are and I think Corbyn is more capable of moving slightly right than the Crazy Gang moving anywhere to the left....oh and he can go after the media as well. Point out who are the ones that are attacking him and what he would do to curb their power!

I repeat the words of the great and noble Riff-Raff

'It is just a jump to the left and then a step to the right'

Far too often recently we have got the words mixed up!

Edited to say the 'Crazy Gang' are the Tories not the other leadership candidates....but then they show no inclination to 'jump to the left' either - perhaps a little twitch but then go back when the establishment gets at them

The Tories' aren't great on economics, no.

But that doesn't mean Corbyn is either. The article is correct that he never expected to have to make sums even vaguely add up.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:45 pm

http://www.dismaland.co.uk/map/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-33999495" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Banksy show in derelict lido in Weston-super-mare
Banksy described the show as a "family theme park unsuitable for children".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/ ... UK20150820" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dismaland is "escape from mindless escapism"
sounds ace

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:47 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: Corbyn is not to blame for any of that....if you, TE and Hugo want to take out your frustration then blame those who did that rather than the rest of us who are fed up of being taken for granted and no longer want to accept the political status quo where we have 3 'main' English parties spouting the same crap
Per the IFS, biggest fiscal difference between the parties in the last election since 1992. And the SNP were more austere than Labour.

There was a danger that Kendall could make Labour very similar to the Tories, but she's tailed off last.

I know there was and I supported it.....but Miliband lost and the reasoning amongst the party grandees was that it was an attack on 'aspiration'.

I know it is nonsense, you know it is nonsense but there are a number in the party who think it is true and they are still around....Kendall is definitely on this page

Cooper and Burnham could have come out fighting for the manifesto that they campaigned on but they didn't and I lost confidence in them at that point. If they came out now and reaffirmed the manifesto and called out the Tories for what they are then I may change my mind - possibly not on Cooper though as she is too strident on 'security' for my liking

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:54 pm

I don't believe I am:

A) Calling anybody stupid and
B) Taking out my frustrations on anybody.

When I point out how utterly hopeless Temulkars argument was against Tubby's original point.

I can see the PMQs now.

Corbyn - I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx.

Cameron - I won't take lessons in morality from a man who associates with somebody who says yyyyyyy

Corbyn - Hah so what I have three pictures of Blair.

Which is really what this boils down to. As for absolving Blair feel free to point out where my argument does that?

You may also want to check my posting history to see my Blairite credentials in full. However not everything the New Labour government did was bad, and many of the redistributive things - like tax credits - that Cameron is cutting were a New Labour creation.

And for the avoidance of doubt I thought Harman was a disgrace for not voting against the government.

I also think Danczuk and Stringer are nobs and was a big supporter of Ed Miliband unlike some.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 8:57 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Larry Elliott puts it quite well.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nomy-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think "big picture" analysis is putting it a bit kindly. It looks incredibly thin. Where for instance does this rebirth in manufacturing come from, for instance?

Elliott might be overestimating the importance of Defence to manufacturing. Corbyn could cut that, I reckon.

Cos the Tories are so bloody great at economics aren't they!

I am fed up of this crap - the ones that are destroying the economy are the right wingers....not the left but suddenly it is incumbent for the Labour Party leader to be held up as having the answers almost 5 years from the next election.

Why is it wrong to aspire to more manufacturing.....it will take a generation to get us back thanks to the destruction started in the Thatcher years (and I am sorry to say little helped by Blair....another thing the Tories throw back as us continually)

He shouldn't engage with them....attack back and hard

I thing the British Public is too thick, ignorant and disinterested to be honest.......it is their chance to prove me wrong

We have to get people emotionally engaged and give them some hope.......the best policies are far to the left of where the Tories are and I think Corbyn is more capable of moving slightly right than the Crazy Gang moving anywhere to the left....oh and he can go after the media as well. Point out who are the ones that are attacking him and what he would do to curb their power!

I repeat the words of the great and noble Riff-Raff

'It is just a jump to the left and then a step to the right'

Far too often recently we have got the words mixed up!

Edited to say the 'Crazy Gang' are the Tories not the other leadership candidates....but then they show no inclination to 'jump to the left' either - perhaps a little twitch but then go back when the establishment gets at them

The Tories' aren't great on economics, no.

But that doesn't mean Corbyn is either. The article is correct that he never expected to have to make sums even vaguely add up.

Since when did the Labour Party base the policy for a general election on comments made during a leadership election? It seems we are just assuming that the Tories and their pals in the papers will just go on a massive attack and everyone will nod their heads and agree with them.

Corbyn will be attacked because he wants to spend money and speaks to terrorists
Burnham will be attacked for South Staffs and his record in last Labour Government -1200 dead dontyaknow
Cooper will be attacked for being Mrs Balls and being in the last Labour Government - Balls was responsible for the crash (you know the one that the Labour Party itself agreed that it had caused!!!!?

Instead of letting them attack us why don't we get out there and attack those useless bastards first! They are economically incompetent but where is Harman and the rest at the moment.....?

Go out and get the first strike in on the media as well......no non-EU resident allowed to own our media, point out that none of them reside in the UK for tax purposes - Harmsworth is domiciled in France.....even though he feels fit to slag them off as well (we cannot stop him owning the media though). Publicly back the BBC (it hurts to say this at the moment) and make sure Murdoch cannot get his hands on Sky - he is going to try again soon I think

Point out that they support the Tories because they make them richer and that they make up stories.

What are we waiting for?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:01 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.dismaland.co.uk/map/
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-33999495" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Banksy show in derelict lido in Weston-super-mare
Banksy described the show as a "family theme park unsuitable for children".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/ ... UK20150820" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dismaland is "escape from mindless escapism"
sounds ace

I liked this one from the BBC article:

: Banksy.png (184.91 KiB) Viewed 5292 times

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:03 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
LOL Yeah thats right, because all the scots who left Labour because they had become 'Red Tories' would have stayed with them had they had a more right wing platform. That is truly cognative dissonance of the most ludicrous. The SNP got where they are because Labour completely ignored their traditional voters, because they wrongly believed those voters had nowhere to go. How is Burnham or Cooper of god forbid Kendall going to win them back? Or have you simply given up on Scotland? Do you think Labour can win bu the 12% swing they would need in England alone?

Without Scotland, Labour will never win another election. Only Corbyn can win you back seats there. The others will merely hasten the end of the union, because they represent everything the voters of Scotland have rejected.

You have lost some of the historically safest labour seats in Wales. How are you going to get them back? Tory lite really isnt going to do it, Tory lite has now lost you those seats.

And I never said New Labour were as bad as PASOK I said they would go the way of PASOK, Should I have said the dodo? Political parties have no right to exist without the support of their members. When the membership lose faith the party is over. It happened to the Liberals in this country and it can happen to Labour too.

You have lost 5 million voters since 1997, lost two elections since 2010, lost the scottish heartlands, and are starting to lose the welsh heartlands. YOu havent lost those places or votes for being too left wing, you have lost them as you jettisoned your principles and became indistinguishable from the tories to many many people in this country. How much more have you got to lose before the Blairites accept the project is finished?

And talking to bring about peace is bollucks in your view? That really does sum up New Labour.
I'm not "New Labour". Guilt by association- is it different when you do it? And don't act like only Corbynites and Lucas and all have principles either.

You're basically writing up SNP rhetoric there. How they won power is a matter of record. Look at their actions in 2007-11. Look at the platform in the Indyref. Look at them now too. It's not all that good- and questions are batted away by blaming "Westminster". It's more than a little like UKIP, and not very leftwing at all.

And I didn't say trying to bring about peace was bollocks. I said Corbyn doing it with people who aren't interested in it was bollocks. A photo-op for all concerned that does nothing but irritate lots of other people who support peace and oppose Israel just as much as he does.

It's all a matter of conjecture, but I see the Miliband platform as having been about right, but undermined by a leader the public never took too and some poor messaging on the core issue of austerity. Plus of course flagrant lies by the Greens, Plaid and SNP. I think a different leader, who has more time to get the measure of Sturgeon, and we're competitive again, while the Tories mess up over the EU Referendum (and other chickens coming home to roost).

PASOK got 4.7% last time. Because they aren't at all like Labour, and not worth mentioning.

Been to Gower lately? It's pretty gentrified.

Awww diddums its all the mean other partys telling fibs, its all the ex leaders fault cos he cant eat a bacon sandwich, its all down to the 'messaging' (way to sound like an out of touch spadocrat btw). We just wait for the tories to mess up and everything is rosy again. It's delusional bullshit, Tubby, and you are intelligent enough to know it.

Come on how is one of the 'electables' going to get the measure of Sturgeon? How exactly are they going to do that when they are universally despised north of the border? Tory lite certainly isnt going to win back Greens, Tory lite wont deal with Plaid, Tory lite wont make a dent in SNP Scotland. Tory lite isnt going to brink back the Kippers.

Labour cannot win in 2020 without Scotland. Corbyn is the only candidate who stands a chance of doing that.

And yep Ive been to Gower many times over the years, lived in Pennard for a while, and was at a book signing there the other day. It has been labour for a century - but hey just dismiss it as gentrified. That is exactly the sneering attitude that has lost you seats across the UK.

Im not emotionally invested in this campaign. Im looking in from the outside, it really matters not one jot to me who wins. Given my past in the Labour party, however, and having seen how those of us on the Left were treated when we were viewed as the enemy within, I cant help thinking about word Karma.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:06 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:I don't believe I am:

A) Calling anybody stupid and
B) Taking out my frustrations on anybody.

When I point out how utterly hopeless Temulkars argument was against Tubby's original point.

I can see the PMQs now.

Corbyn - I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx.

Cameron - I won't take lessons in morality from a man who associates with somebody who says yyyyyyy

Corbyn - Hah so what I have three pictures of Blair.

Which is really what this boils down to. As for absolving Blair feel free to point out where my argument does that?

You may also want to check my posting history to see my Blairite credentials in full. However not everything the New Labour government did was bad, and many of the redistributive things - like tax credits - that Cameron is cutting were a New Labour creation.

And for the avoidance of doubt I thought Harman was a disgrace for not voting against the government.

I also think Danczuk and Stringer are nobs and was a big supporter of Ed Miliband unlike some.

Burnham: I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx

Cameron: I won't take lessons from a man responsible for 1200 seats at South Staffs

Cooper: I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx

Cameron: I won't take lessons from a woman taking instruction from her husband who wrecked the economy

The guy is a liar and a rogue...he will do this to everyone.

I would like us to have a Shadow Cabinet member standing up and saying he is either a liar or ignorant of the facts. If told to withdraw then be prepared to get chucked out. If he has lied, or is ignorant, then he will not be able to hide it so easily when it will lead the news. Shouldn't be difficult finding an example as they do it weekly

I also think you are absolving Blair from the very poor misjudgements he has made as well - as mentioned before it is you who have raised this as an issue with Corbyn...just pointing out that politicians have made errors of judgement before and not been penalised for it. Cameron is hardly safe from this accusation either but seemingly it only matters for Corbyn

If you argue he is more vulnerable to the press making a big deal of it than Cameron then you are definitely right but then that bunch of tax dodgers and crooks will do that to no matter who threatens their hegemony....Miliband anyone? and the only way to win is to hit them hard and try to get through to the public what type of people they are