The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Demitri_C]

38 minutes ago, Awol said:

I presume he means a collective shower of shite. A laughing stock, a working class abandoning, identity politics embracing, student union debating society that long ago disappeared up its own fundament.

That type of bad.   

I think that's a fair analysis from awol @Jon !

They are a laughing stock at the moment 

[dAVe80]

56 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Then who left in labour party is there? I mean if Jeremy Corbyn can win twice shows how bad that party is at present

Not really, but I'm not getting into that argument.

If Jeremy were to go, I'd want someone with similar political leanings, and someone who didn't stab him in the back. That rules out a large proportion of PLP. Rebecca Long-Bailey, and Angela Rayner have been touted, and are going about their jobs in the shadow cabinet very well. I'd like to see Clive Lewis get the job eventually, but maybe a tad too early.  Not ******* Tom Watson though, that's for sure.  

 

[Awol]

42 minutes ago, Jon said:

The members? There are a few people on here you are directly insulting there. If you are talking PLP, you'd have more grounds, but they didn't elect Jez, the membership did.

And of course posters here are always very careful to make such distinctions when describing Leave voters, for example. 

For the mods, I was not directly insulting any individual posters here, but current Labour is a shower of shite regardless. 

[Awol]

50 minutes ago, Jon said:

Not entirely sure you could level that at Jez. Blair, yes.

Cozying up to the IRA.. yep that's a winner down most pubs.  Supporting mass immigration, again another winner with working class voters competing for low or unskilled jobs. All round lack of patriotism while rallying for every trendy (with his type) kind of dodgy foreign organization he can stand next to on a podium.

You think this is popular with working class voters? Check the polls, Labour will get annihilated. 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, Jon said:

The members? There are a few people on here you are directly insulting there. If you are talking PLP, you'd have more grounds, but they didn't elect Jez, the membership did.

I didn't read it that way personally. I don't see how members of the party can be held responsible for the way the party is run, even if they voted for Corbyn. As someone who has always voted Labour I agree with AWOL's damning summary, I said when Corbyn was elected the Labour Party had handed the Tories the next election and everything that I've seen since has confirmed that view.

30 minutes ago, Awol said:

And of course posters here are always very careful to make such distinctions when describing Leave voters, for example. 

I think that is a fair point in relation to the characterisation of those who voted Leave.

Likewise the characterisation of Tories as being evil baby eaters.

If anything those on the left other than the odd yogurt knitting accusation don't do too bad.

But as I say I see the comment from AWOL as being more about Corbyn and the PLP than grass root membership.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Cozying up to the IRA.. yep that's a winner down most pubs.  Supporting mass immigration, again another winner with working class voters competing for low or unskilled jobs. All round lack of patriotism while rallying for every trendy (with his type) kind of dodgy foreign organization he can stand next to on a podium.

You think this is popular with working class voters? Check the polls, Labour will get annihilated. 

I think the problem started with the removal of clause 4, which was at least a unifying founding principle, and now all they have left is a collection of single-issue nut jobs and grievance mongers, who care more about the glass-ceiling than the plight of the lower third of the working population, while Labour voters are just people who want to consume as much as possible with a good conscience, while enjoying Scandinavian quality public services which are paid for by someone else.

Labour is divided along this chasm and Corbyn is supposed to do the impossible job of bringing all these strands together while repeating the left's self-righteous cant ad nauseam, so that the winners created by New Labour can claim to be morally superior to the winners created by Thatcher.

Finding someone who is neither Corbyn or Blair is going to be tough job.

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, Awol said:

And of course posters here are always very careful to make such distinctions when describing Leave voters, for example. 

Leave voters - they're a shower of cu.......oh, I see...yes, well.... as I was saying they show, er, continuous wisdom. phew! got out of that one just in time

[Xann]

12 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

... everything that I've seen since has confirmed that view.

That's the narrative that's been paid for after all.

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Xann said:

That's the narrative that's been paid for after all.

I think it's true that media coverage overall is tilted against Corbyn and his clique of people. It's always been anti left. I suspect that the sort of composite image of Corbyn that's been portrayed by media is that he's probably a nice man, with some decent policies and some hard left policies and that he's not very good at being leader of anything.

But that doesn't really explain why the tories are ahead by 20% in the polls, or why the tories are more trusted on things like the NHS, or why lifelong Labour supporters have sort of despaired of him. How is it that the "paid for" coverage of Corbyn has somehow managed to work a miracle and cause so many lefty voters and supporters to abandon Labour. And how is it that under the same paid for coverage, a different bunch of these momentum types has signed up and got all enthusiastic about the "saintly Jez".

And how come negative media coverage of Jez works on Labour supporters and turns people against him, yet these same people are somehow immune to coverage in the same media saying that the T. May droid is brilliant? How come it doesn't work when they praise the Replicant, but it does work when they're nasty about someone from their own party?

Blaming the media coverage, if Labour were to do that would be a mistake. 

[Xann]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

But that doesn't really explain why the tories are ahead by 20% in the polls...

You should speak to my Dad.

Totally non political, born in India.

15 years of retirement, reading his own Torygraph and the papers in the pub.

Chip chip chip

Give him 30 seconds and he's off on a clueless right wing diatribe.

It's the greys that read and believe the papers, it's also the greys that vote.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Xann said:

You should speak to my Dad.

Totally non political, born in India.

15 years of retirement, reading his own Torygraph and the papers in the pub.

Chip chip chip

Give him 30 seconds and he's off on a clueless right wing diatribe.

It's the greys that read and believe the papers, it's also the greys that vote.

I suspect that most Telegraph reading older citizens tend to be quite tory-ish anyway. Not really ever likely to be the sort of folk who would decide "that Jeremy Corbyn, he's the one for me". People reading papers like the Torygraph are mostly the converted being preached to, or they just like the sport or the crossword. telegraph readers just aren't Corbyn's natural bedfellows, frankly. 

[Xann]

He wasn't political in the slightest, and was racially tolerant when it wasn't fashionable.

That's why it's odd he's become that way - "I read an article about immigrants....."

 

Besides, do you believe YouGov & co bowl a straight ball every time?

[darrenm]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

I presume he means a collective shower of shite. A laughing stock, a working class abandoning, identity politics embracing, student union debating society that long ago disappeared up its own fundament.

That type of bad.   

Or actually none of that because it's all bollocks

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

I didn't read it that way personally. I don't see how members of the party can be held responsible for the way the party is run, even if they voted for Corbyn. As someone who has always voted Labour I agree with AWOL's damning summary, I said when Corbyn was elected the Labour Party had handed the Tories the next election and everything that I've seen since has confirmed that view.

I think that is a fair point in relation to the characterisation of those who voted Leave.

Likewise the characterisation of Tories as being evil baby eaters.

If anything those on the left other than the odd yogurt knitting accusation don't do too bad.

But as I say I see the comment from AWOL as being more about Corbyn and the PLP than grass root membership.

 

Shocker

[Awol]

36 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Or actually none of that because it's all bollocks

20 points behind the Tories Darren, why do you think that is? 

[blandy]

55 minutes ago, Xann said:

Besides, do you believe YouGov & co bowl a straight ball every time?

How do you mean Dave?

If I interpret yourquestion right, what I believe is that polls have historically over estimated the Labour vote each time, and then the real vote has been more Tory than predicted. That's from analysis of predictions and results done each time.

I also believe therefore that the margins of error of polling are likely to be wider than is claimed. I also consider it possible that in tweaking their polling techniques, it is conceivable that the polling companies have over-corrected for their previous Labour bias and could possibly have over-cooked it and now be too Tory weighted.

So I take their precision with a large pinch of salt.

I consider that it is highly likely that from all the work done by all the pollsters that May is a long way ahead in the public's estimation, than Corbyn. I consider that the Tories are ahead of Labour by a distance. I don't like that, but there it is. 

What I absolutely wouldn't want to do is consider that what I want to happen (a large anti Tory majority) is somehow happening despite the all available evidence. 

Alternatively If you meant "do I think the polls are free from being deliberately rigged against COrbyn/Labour", then yes, I do think they are free and fair from bias of that sort (if not 100% perfect).

 

 

[Xann]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

How do you mean Dave?

The local tube station sits on a crossroads.

The local hospital is on one corner, a humongous Sloaney pub on another.

Depending on which corner you stood to poll, you could come up with figures that would suit the case you were trying to make.

I'm not saying all polls are crooked, that would be foll hat sort of stuff, but when you realise (much like the papers) who owns these companies, and how much damage could be caused by just a teensy bit of gerrymandering.

You know who owns YouGov?

 

[darrenm]

36 minutes ago, Awol said:

20 points behind the Tories Darren, why do you think that is? 

Firstly, I don't really believe the polls. 

But Corbyn does seem a bit marmite to people. People who like him seem to identify with his ideology on social justice and pacifism.

Those who don't like him seem to be because of either the apparent links to the IRA which I still can't find any actual details about apart from being an active member of the peace process, his looks, or general I just don't like him. All of which is purely arbitrary and subjective. 

Most of the above is from his portrayal on all forms of media.

[Risso]

Is it still "happening" Darren?

[wazzap24]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

 

If anything those on the left other than the odd yogurt knitting accusation don't do too bad.

Are you talking about the Libtard, snowflake, remoaning, elitist Left that's full of social justice warriors crying liberal tears? Or a different left I've not come across?