Mantis Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) 23 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Of course there are 'connotations' to the word 'Corbynista'. You, yourself, in this very quote, have provided three examples of recent British politicians who when turned into adjectives, had the suffix '-ite' added. You're not even slightly interested in why Corbyn received the suffix '-ista'? It's just random, like the weather? It's not random but it's not sinister either - I can't remember where I found it originally but my guess is it's a reference to Corbyn's fondness for the Chavez/Maduro governments in Venezuela. And to be fair, I've heard the term "Corbynite" loads of times. 5 minutes ago, terrytini said: Ah, well, theres those facts versus opinions again. In the 1970 election about 11.5 million voted for Labour, and about the same Conservative. Taking the most recent poll (with this apparently absoulte idiotic vote loser at the helm !!!) an election tomorrow would see the Tories with about a million more than that, and Labour with about 1.5 million less. Not such a rightward shift as we would be led to beleive, well within the bounds of changes of fortune. (Which, to depart from being objective for a momant, is PRECISELY why there is such a determined effort to undermine him...) Opinion polling has had the Tories consistently several percentage points ahead of Labour, sometimes over 10 points. There's a reason why many Labour MPs are desperate for him to go and that's because Labour are faltering badly under Labour and they know that barring something extraordinary they'll get tonked in 2020 if Corbyn is still there. The reason why the Tories and certain papers want to undermine Corbyn is not because they're scared of him but because they smell blood. Trust me on this, very few people in the Conservative party are scared of Corbyn. 21 minutes ago, blandy said: Well why, in that case did William Hague and the EU talk to them? And the same is the case with Hamas - because the politicians to their credit want to try and stop the killing . Double standards Who are you referring to here? The IRA? I really don't think Corbyn is that interested in stopping the killing though - he consistently only ever dealt with the IRA and I've never heard of him talking to anybody on the Israeli side of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Edited November 26, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 26, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 26, 2015 10 minutes ago, Mantis said: Who are you referring to here? The IRA? I really don't think Corbyn is that interested in stopping the killing though - he consistently only ever dealt with the IRA and I've never heard of him talking to anybody on the Israeli side of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I was referring to the same people that Corbyn called "friends" Hezbollah. He talks to them and he's portrayed as bessie mates. The EU or William Hague talks to them and it's barely mentioned and if it is it's portrayed as - Government efforts to bring peace to the middle East continued today....or some such. The point on Israel - in the Labour leader debates this report says Quote Veteran leftwinger Corbyn, who is widely known for his peace activism, called for the UK to have “relationships with all sections of society in Israel” and stressed the need to have a nuanced view of the country. “We shouldn’t judge everything to do with Israel through the prism of whatever Benjamin Netanyahu is saying from one day to the next – Israel’s politics is much wider than that,” Corbyn said, who added that he has been on nine visits to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza during his 32 years in parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 9 minutes ago, Mantis said: It's not random but it's not sinister either - I can't remember where I found it originally but my guess is it's a reference to Corbyn's fondness for the Chavez/Maduro governments in Venezuela. And to be fair, I've heard the term "Corbynite" loads of times. I didn't say it was sinister, I said it had connotations. The suffix is meant to reflect the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas were a populist armed revolutionary movement who overthrew a US-backed dictator. Implications of the '-ista' suffix follow on from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordoncharles Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 24 minutes ago, terrytini said: If you like pop over to Bewdley and Ill sit with you in the Pub for two hours. I will talk non stop, and the ONLY thing I will do is show you examople after example after example. If after that you still feel he has been treated properly and fairly, fair enough. But you wont. And as for Labour supporting newspapers........do you know of any other than the Mirror ? Because thats the only one. As enticing as your offer is and as much as I might like to hear your monologue, to get to you would be a bit of a stretch from my starting position. As for newspapers, what about the Guardian and Independent. You seem to have forgotten that The Times, The Sun and Financial Times all backed Labour from before Blair's election till after Brown became PM. It's a laugh to see the upset of others over the supposed smearing of poor Jeremy equated with the fate of Michael Foot and Tony Benn. I have no way of knowing the backgrounds of any posters but this is just a re-run of what happened in the late 70s. Again the Labour Party was riven with ideological divisions which resulted in a full-scale split. Just to re-iterate - that had nothing to do with the influence of the damned press. At the following election, on a far/hard/extreme/cuddly/caring (*please delete as appropriate) platform, Labour suffered its worst election defeat in 70 years. Now... what was the Churchill quote about those who fail to learn from history? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) 5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I didn't say it was sinister, I said it had connotations. The suffix is meant to reflect the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas were a populist armed revolutionary movement who overthrew a US-backed dictator. Implications of the '-ista' suffix follow on from that. In the case of Corbyn I think it's got more to do with his support of Chavez. As I said though, Corbynite is probably the more widely used term anyway, certainly by the media. 14 minutes ago, blandy said: I was referring to the same people that Corbyn called "friends" Hezbollah. He talks to them and he's portrayed as bessie mates. The EU or William Hague talks to them and it's barely mentioned and if it is it's portrayed as - Government efforts to bring peace to the middle East continued today....or some such. The point on Israel - in the Labour leader debates this report says The difference there is that Hague doesn't talk to extremist Zionists. A simple bland statement doesn't change that. Edited November 26, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 Well, we can discuss back and forth on the source. Maybe it's Chavez (I have heard people use the word 'Chavista', but I wouldn't say it was common in English-language media, but you might be right), it might be Sandinistas, it might be a bit of both. But you see the general point - when people use that word and not 'Corbynite', it's a choice, ergo the word has connotations. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post VILLAMARV Posted November 26, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted November 26, 2015 The fact that there are eloquently spoken people who write and argue their pov so well, yet can't see the bias in the media reporting around Mr Corbyn, makes my soul cry a little. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 26, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 26, 2015 1 hour ago, gordoncharles said: As for newspapers, what about the Guardian and Independent. You seem to have forgotten that The Times, The Sun and Financial Times all backed Labour from before Blair's election till after Brown became PM. The Murdoch papers back who their proprietor wants them to. Currently that's Ham face. and has been for about 6 years plus. The FT, Indie and Grauniad, the Metro too - none of these back Labour. The grauniad and Indie are left leaning, but have tended to go for some Lib Dem-ish type of view though I think Guardian was Labour last time? if any and the FT seems to be largely case by case - i.e. it's pretty neutral, with a bias towards whatever it thinks will be best for the accountancy people who read it. The metro doesn't seem to support anyone. Express - Right wing, Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Times ditto. Mirror - Labour. Wikipedia covers it pretty well. ----------- National newspapers[edit] Daily newspapers[edit] Newspaper Party endorsed Notes Link Daily Express Conservative Party [1] Daily Mail Conservative Party [2] Daily Mirror Labour Party[1] Daily Star None[1] Daily Telegraph Conservative Party [3] Financial Times Conservative Party Backed Labour in 2005. [4] Guardian Liberal Democrats[2] Backed Labour in 2005. Backed Labour in 2015. Supports anti-Conservative tactical voting with view to pro-electoral reform coalition [5] Independent None Supports proportional representation. Urged anti-Conservative tactical voting. [6] Morning Star None Calls for a Labour vote where Communist or similar left-wing candidates are not standing [7] Sun Conservative Party[1] Backed Labour in 2005. [8] Times Conservative Party[1] Backed Labour in 2005. [9] Sunday newspapers[edit] Newspaper Party endorsed Notes Link Independent on Sunday None[1] Supports a hung parliament. [10] Mail on Sunday Conservative Party[1] [11] News of the World Conservative Party[1] Backed Labour in 2005. [12] Observer Liberal Democrats[1] Backed Labour in 2005. [13] Sunday Mirror Labour Party[1] People None[1] Supports a hung parliament. [14] Sunday Express Conservative Party[1] [15] Sunday Telegraph Conservative Party[1] [16] Sunday Times Conservative Party[1] Backed Labour in 2005. [17] News magazines[edit] Newspaper Party endorsed Notes Link Economist Conservative Party Backed Labour in 2005. [18] New Statesman None Anti-Conservative tactical voting. [19] Spectator Conservative Party [20] Regional newspapers[edit] England[edit] Newspaper Party endorsed Notes Link City A.M. Conservative Party [21] Evening Standard Conservative Party [22] Express & Star Liverpool Echo Labour Party Manchester Evening News Labour Party Metro Yorkshire Post Conservative Party Northern Ireland[edit] Newspaper Party endorsed Notes Link Belfast Telegraph None[3] [23] Irish News None[3] News Letter None Pro-Unionist Parties. Back Unity candidate Rodney Connor. [24] Scotland[edit] Newspaper Party endorsed Notes Link Daily Record Labour Party [25] Herald None [26] Scotsman None 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 (edited) Why are you quoting the 2010 endorsements Blandy? It was far more balanced this time. Speaking of the media, I find it weird how the Independent backed another Conservative-Lib Dem coalition yet since the election they've arguably been more pro-Labour/anti-Conservative than even the Guardian. 1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said: The fact that there are eloquently spoken people who write and argue their pov so well, yet can't see the bias in the media reporting around Mr Corbyn, makes my soul cry a little. Don't think anyone's denying there's bias - both pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn. I just don't see this bias as anything new or unusual. If people having different opinions to you makes your soul cry a little then well that's your problem. Edited November 26, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 26, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 26, 2015 14 minutes ago, Mantis said: Why are you quoting the 2010 endorsements Blandy? It was far more balanced this time. Speaking of the media, I find it weird how the Independent backed another Conservative-Lib Dem coalition yet since the election they've arguably been more pro-Labour/anti-Conservative than even the Guardian. Don't think anyone's denying there's bias - both pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn. I just don't see this bias as anything new or unusual. If people having different opinions to you makes your soul cry a little then well that's your problem. It's what came up when I did a search. I've since done another and it's not much different (Express was UKIP not Tory, Guardian Labour not LibDem). The Indie was said in the search result to have backed the coalition again, but that's not right. They did an editorial that said " Quote This title casts no vote. But we prize strong, effective government, consider nationalism guilty until proven innocent, and say that if the present Coalition is to get another chance, we hope it is much less conservative, and much more liberal. which is not the same thing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 So looks like turmoil with labour now Corbyn refuses to support airstrikes against IS. Absolute madness and this wa smy far with him, he is way to soft. Are we going to wait until they do attack on us before we move? Completely unelectable in my opinion and I think the public will soon turn on him unless she grows some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Out of curiosity what's the objective of the air strikes? I'm undecided, so I'd like to know what the plan is before making up my mind. So far I've only heard that we need to join in and we need to beat ISIS. But I know the strategy must be far more complex and developed than that, given our recent record. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 On 11/18/2015, 1:04:29, Jon said: . 28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Out of curiosity what's the objective of the air strikes? I'm undecided, so I'd like to know what the plan is before making up my mind. So far I've only heard that we need to join in and we need to beat ISIS. But I know the strategy must be far more complex and developed than that, given our recent record. We know the Iraq war was a complete lie, but I think this is obviously more of a threat to most of Europe. I dont think they are likely to discuss what the strategy of attack will be as I am sure they won't want IS knowing what they have planned. i just think we are living on borrowed time if IS are not taken out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 But air strikes won't take them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 I'm going to try and take my question over to the slightly more relevant thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Isn't he a pacifist? At least he hasn't abandoned long-held views at the first sniff of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 1 hour ago, coda said: Isn't he a pacifist? At least he hasn't abandoned long-held views at the first sniff of power. a republican pacifist .. still one out of 2 isn't bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 27, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 27, 2015 4 hours ago, Demitri_C said: Corbyn refuses to support airstrikes against IS. Absolute madness It's not madness, Dem. It's fine to disagree with it, but here are his reasons. Are they "madness"? They are ones I completely agree with 100% Quote The issue now is whether what the Prime Minister is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security. I do not believe that the Prime Minister today made a convincing case that extending UK bombing to Syria would meet that crucial test. Nor did it satisfactorily answer the questions raised by us and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. In particular, the Prime Minister did not set out a coherent strategy, coordinated through the United Nations, for the defeat of ISIS. Nor has he been able to explain what credible and acceptable ground forces could retake and hold territory freed from ISIS control by an intensified air campaign..... In my view, the Prime Minister has been unable to explain the contribution of additional UK bombing to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian civil war, or its likely impact on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK. For these and other reasons, I do not believe the Prime Minister’s current proposal for air strikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) Diane Abbot has come out and said that Mao did more good than harm. Seriously. Are Labour actually trying to give the Tories ammunition? WTF is wrong with these people. STOP **** TALKING ABOUT MAO YOU clearings in the woods. Edited November 27, 2015 by Davkaus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Diane Abbot. That's not a card you'd want to be dealt if you were playing MP Top Trumps. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts