chrisp65 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Sounds like in a roundabout way you are saying we are right to bomb then ? but I'm still not sure the correct decision by wobbly methods is grounds to claim a "victory" ... But If bicks can claim osbornes u-turn on tax credits as a labour victory then the Tories can claim labours u-turn on a free vote as a victory for them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Labour appear to have held oldham, guess it's all about the majority now and who gets to claim victory .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 They didn't just hold Oldham, they made huge gains. Just goes to show again that political commentators in the media haven't got a **** clue, and the polls are a joke. Obviously a Labour safe seat doesn't paint a picture of how a nationwide vote would go, but it's an encouraging sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Ukip are pretty much claiming that the result is illegitimate because postal votes shouldn't count, or something. There are also rumours that people who aren't white voted for Labour, and their votes counted somehow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Well, Farage was just on breakfast telly accepting that 'Labour were well ahead' but saying that there were 7000 postal votes that, if you didn't count them, meant that there was only a difference of 3000 between the parties. So I guess he's suggesting that every single postal vote was for the Labour candidate. He also seemed to say that the votes of immigrants (who according to his relaying of a Grauniad correspondent's comments from last weekend couldn't speak a word of English between them - or something like that, it wasn't verbatim) were crucial to the Labour vote without acknowledging that sans immigration being any sort of issue on which to campaign his party might not even be second in that or any constituency. Edited December 4, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 4, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2015 I'm not sure that the increase in Labour's Oldham majority is as significant as the Conservatives drop in support - down 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Higher turn out ... Could just be that labour had activists out as they needed to hold the seat where as I doubt the Torys hardly bothered campaigning there could be more to it though .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 4, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2015 11 hours ago, tonyh29 said: Higher turn out ... Could just be that labour had activists out as they needed to hold the seat where as I doubt the Torys hardly bothered campaigning there could be more to it though .. I think the Torys would have been absolutely busting a gut on this one - the opportunity to make Corbyn look bad at the first hurdle would have been a very welcome thing. That said, the slightly triumphal tone of this fantastic result for Labour being a justification of Corbyn and his policies concerns me slightly (and I'm a huge Corbyn fan) simply because I'm not sure if this is a statement of support for Corbyn and his policies or just an indication of quite how much this nation hates the current government right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) 23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I think the Torys would have been absolutely busting a gut on this one - the opportunity to make Corbyn look bad at the first hurdle would have been a very welcome thing. I don't think the Tories did contest it for fear of taking votes off Labour and then letting UKIP win the seat. As it was it wasn't even close, although many so called experts were predicting it could be, and had the Tories made a real effort it would have made no difference at all. I agree and I don't think this should be seen as any real indication of a wider public backing of Corbyn. This has long been a Labour safe seat and the guy contesting it was well known having been the Council leader. I think the London Mayoral election next year could be the first real indicator. Edited December 4, 2015 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 4, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2015 11 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I think the Torys would have been absolutely busting a gut on this one - the opportunity to make Corbyn look bad at the first hurdle would have been a very welcome thing. That said, the slightly triumphal tone of this fantastic result for Labour being a justification of Corbyn and his policies concerns me slightly (and I'm a huge Corbyn fan) simply because I'm not sure if this is a statement of support for Corbyn and his policies or just an indication of quite how much this nation hates the current government right now. Turnout was down, and Labour's majority was down (but they got a bigger share of the smaller total vote than last time). I wonder if the tories knew the UKIPs were always going to be the main rival for Labour, so didn't try too hard, preferring a bloody nose for Labour if UKIPs were to have won? Because the press (as Davkaus said) have been so one-eyed/wrong up to this point, it's hard to trust what they say on the nature of the victory. I suspect that it's a mix of Corbyn being nowhere near as unpopular (for being a London based whatever) with Labour voters as was made out in some of the coverage, plus a number of previous non-voters voting for him because they like what he says and the Labour candidate being a good bloke and well known and liked locally. But until or unless analysis of figures and detail is done, everyone can just guess away and say whatever suits them. I like some (a fair bit) of what Corbyn says and stands for, but other parts I don't get at all. I think the tories are hated strongly in parts of the country, but there are clearly other parts that are OK with them (sadly). They'd be hated a lot more if Labour did a better job of pointing out how terrible they are. Labour have failed to make anything of Osbourne's U-turn on the bastardry he was going to do with working tax credits. They've done nothing about the U turn on the court charges, they've done nothing on the utter failure to meet any of the targets on National debt, on immigration, on "the march of the makers". Next to nothing on the Doctors strike and Hunt backing down at the last minute and it all being massively mishandled (and a lie anyway). Little on the change from "bomb Assad" to "Bomb Assad's enemies". Labour are unfortunately too busy arguing amongst themselves about whether someone was beastly to an MP who supports /doesn't support Corbyn. I thought the last Government was the worst I'd known, but this one is far worse, with no Lib Dems to take the edge of some of it, and they're getting a free ride because Labour is a mess. The SNP do a far, far better job, with a fraction of the MPs. Sad. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 On the presumption that anything anywhere can be bloody trusted anymore it now appears the media drama over intimidation turns out to have been, well, a bit over egged. I'd been under the impression from the media that people had been personally confronted and issued with death threats. Quote It was falsely reported on social media that some protestors marched on Stella’s home, but Stella subsequently made clear there is no evidence that happened. Stella expressed concern about the harassment her staff members were subjected to, writing on social media that she missed parts of the Parliamentary debate on air strikes because she felt she needed to leave the chamber to check they were OK. But it is also now clear that her staff weren’t in her constituency office when the march took place. Tom Watson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 Did I read correctly that Corbyns going to sack Hilary Benn?? Benn is probably the only person lately that I admire from the labour party and they want to sack him? Absolutely mind boggling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 What is it that you admire about Hilary Benn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 29, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2015 I think Benn has a choice to make - he either agrees with the things that the Labour party stands for and wants to be a part of the party, or he joins a party that more comfortably matches the things he believes in. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 29, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 29, 2015 2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: he either agrees with the things that the Labour party stands for and wants to be a part of the party, or he joins a party that more comfortably matches the things he believes in. Trouble is, the things the party believes in (keeping Trident for example) are not necessarily the same things that Corbyn believes in. It's not as simple as the most left part of the party is the part that has the monopoly on official policy. Like with the Lib Dems or the Tories, there are a number of issues which completely split them - Europe with the Tories, or economics (or even being in coalition) with the Lib Dems. The only way I can see for it to work is for both the Corbyn side and the MPs to move towards each other. Like with Trident, he seems to be trying to rig it, so that their new policy will be to get rid of it. But it's pointless, because all the tories want to keep it, as do enough others (including many Labour MPs) that it'll end up being kept if there's ever a HoC vote on it. Furthermore, if they were to change their policy to get rid, it would not win them any Scottish seats back -overall they'd lose out from it. That's the maths. So changing the policy is pointless squabbling over something that will not benefit them and will harm them. They need to stop dicking about and settle on a coherent criticism of and opposition to the wretched Gov't we've now got. They need to make persuasive comments and arguments to people, as to why the tories are wrecking the place. And keep on at it. Stop squabbling. It is what it is in terms of who's leader and who isn't. Make it work. I agree that the surrogate Tony Blairs have got to realise that the time of Blair has gone. His pseudo Tory policies are not the way forward, and the party membership wants more socially fair policies, and the Country needs them to oppose the Gov't properly, and not plot to get rid of Corbyn instead. That means knuckling down and doing their jobs. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 no comments about the Trotskyists fighting communists overseen by a Russian nationalist or Corbyns re-shuffle as it's also known Benn gagged , 3 resignations (/ sackings) , a couple of demotions and a return of the snob Thornberry ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: a return of the snob Thornberry ... At Defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Meh, bunch of minions I've never heard of getting bumped from jobs I never knew they had. BBC appear to be quite upset that it wasn't a bigger more dramatic story with more blood and guts than it's turned out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Meh, bunch of minions I've never heard of getting bumped from jobs I never knew they had. BBC appear to be quite upset that it wasn't a bigger more dramatic story with more blood and guts than it's turned out to be. only because Benn appears to have done a Burnham and put career over principles and not walked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Are you suggesting that a politician that wanted bombing without a clear strategy has poor principles and a career to nurture? Never heard the likes of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts