Join the Labour Party and save your country!

mrfpb

Definition of irony

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron says Jeremy Corbyn's re-election means that Labour "continues to be dominated by ineffectual leaders".

Stevo_666

mrfpb wrote:

Definition of irony

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron says Jeremy Corbyn's re-election means that Labour "continues to be dominated by ineffectual leaders".

True, although at least people actually know who Corbyn is.

tangled_metal

Husband abuser story from daily wail is B.S. There was an argument 10 years ago between two people going through a divorce. Police called and both got arrested then cautioned. Big story and IMHO the guy from the men's victims of abuse charity they quoted should have actually checked up on things before giving an opinion. Sounds like a daily wail reporter cold called telling him a highly biased story to which he possibly said she should resign if true. Spin and twist the comment to make a story against Labour from very little.

Why did the DM feel they needed to come up with such rubbish to discredit Corbyn's Labour? Corbyn and his gang do it so much better every day without these stupid non-stories that possibly do harm.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Definition of irony

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron says Jeremy Corbyn's re-election means that Labour "continues to be dominated by ineffectual leaders".

True, although at least people actually know who Corbyn is.

Not sure how anyone who admits asking God for advice is going to be taken seriously.

"Oh, he's not come up with any yet? Colour me surprised".

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Why did the DM feel they needed to come up with such rubbish to discredit Corbyn's Labour? Corbyn and his gang do it so much better every day without these stupid non-stories that possibly do harm.

Overall agree.

Corbyn and his cabinet should be given as much air time as possible then they can shoot themselves in the foot without anyone having to lift a finger. Most people know leftiebollox when they hear it.

tangled_metal

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Definition of irony

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron says Jeremy Corbyn's re-election means that Labour "continues to be dominated by ineffectual leaders".

True, although at least people actually know who Corbyn is.

Not sure how anyone who admits asking God for advice is going to be taken seriously.

"Oh, he's not come up with any yet? Colour me surprised".

About 1.2 million Catholics take a guy who seeks and apparently gets advice from God. The pope in case you didn't get who I meant. It's called faith. For people who have it then what he said makes sense. If you've not got faith it's daft. However ridiculing someone for their faith/beliefs is a little... well intolerant I guess.

BTW to people who've met him he's actually not a bad guy and is effective in whatever role he's been in (both before he stood for an election and after). BTW he got the leadership because he's bothered to go around the country to his party's constituency meetings to discuss their local issues and listen to them. He listens to his constituents too, always has. That's possibly why he turned a solid Tory seat into a solid Lib Dem seat. Impressive how that happened. Used to see Tory banners throughout his constituency before he won it. Fields by the side of main roads mostly Tory signs with some Lib Dem banners and perhaps I saw one Labour sign. Now? You really only see Lib Dem signs and the odd Tory one. He'll never get that in many Tory or even Labour constituencies but I bet he's galvanised the local activists by his connections. I think eventually he'll set the groundwork for the next, more charismatic leader of their party to gain the seats they lost. Just my opinion though, still he's a lot better than Corbyn IMHO.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804907/Labour-s-shadow-minister-domestic-violence-cautioned-bust-husband-hitting-framed-painting.html

Corbyn appoints a shadow HO Minister responsible for covering abuse and domestic violence who has a conviction for domestic violence. Can't be said that they don't have the necessary experience can it?
In this case it happens to be a woman. I wonder if there will be the same furore from the usual suspects over this appointment as there would if Corbyn had appointed a wife beater?

Do you work for the Mail? Champion was very much responsible for bring the Rotherham child abuse scandal to the nations attention, few MPs have so much for this cause.

i have had some experience of Miss Champion and she came across as a caring and passionate MP on the subject of child abuse.

"Both Miss Champion, a vocal campaigner against domestic abuse, and Mr Hoyland, a best-selling author and mountaineer, received police cautions"

So she had an argument with her husband? we dont know the details or his past abuse of her.

a female friend of mine got a caution for spiting in her partners face, he got nothing, the back drop is that she was scared shitless of him, he d beat her for many years before finally leaving him, despite repeatedly reporting his abuse to the Police, they always did nothing, he would always dent and there were no witnesses.
in this spitting instance, he went to grab her (over an argument about their 2 children, one conceived after he raped her) and for reasons unknown, she spat at him, he smiled, backed off and went straight to the Police, she admitted what she d done, was she in the wrong? yes

try and have some understanding before you jump to conclusions on subjects you clearly have no experience off.

First off, it was lazy of me to say she has a conviction, I should have said caution.

Your tale about your friend is very sad but in no way relevant is it? Any suggestion that Champion had been raped? Some info from your "experience" with her that we are not privy to? I doubt it. You say that we don't know the details of the past abuses against her. Were there any? Perhaps she was the abuser? Are you assuming only male partners are capable of abuse? Is that not sexist?
You seem quite ready to defend her appointment. How would you feel if someone with a caution for theft was appointed to the Home Office? My point was Corbyn's judgement or lack thereof in her appointment.
She admitted the offence and received a caution, as did her partner, that is true. How does that diminish her part in the fracas? They both received cautions.

Stevo_666

Winning one Tory seat hardly makes you a success.

The fact remains that the Lib Dems have 8 MPs and around 8% support nationwide - as such they are at best a fringe party and at worse a political irrelevance.

ballysmate

Mamba, to be honest I hadn't looked back properly at what I had posted as it wasn't of any great gravitas really was it? You are right, it was a bit of a muck raking story wasn't it. But your response surprised me a bit.
Looking back, I posted

In this case it happens to be a woman. I wonder if there will be the same furore from the usual suspects over this appointment as there would if Corbyn had appointed a wife beater?

Your response does seem to suggest that there would be a difference in the attitude to a man with a similar caution promoted to such a role. Why is that?

rick_chasey

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Definition of irony

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron says Jeremy Corbyn's re-election means that Labour "continues to be dominated by ineffectual leaders".

True, although at least people actually know who Corbyn is.

Not sure how anyone who admits asking God for advice is going to be taken seriously.

"Oh, he's not come up with any yet? Colour me surprised".

God is fairly high up on the list of ineffectual leaders.

joelsim

Rick Chasey wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Definition of irony

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron says Jeremy Corbyn's re-election means that Labour "continues to be dominated by ineffectual leaders".

True, although at least people actually know who Corbyn is.

Not sure how anyone who admits asking God for advice is going to be taken seriously.

"Oh, he's not come up with any yet? Colour me surprised".

God is fairly high up on the list of ineffectual leaders.

There are a lot of ineffectual leaders, but at least some of them exist.

joelsim

Tangled Metal wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Definition of irony

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron says Jeremy Corbyn's re-election means that Labour "continues to be dominated by ineffectual leaders".

True, although at least people actually know who Corbyn is.

Not sure how anyone who admits asking God for advice is going to be taken seriously.

"Oh, he's not come up with any yet? Colour me surprised".

About 1.2 million Catholics take a guy who seeks and apparently gets advice from God. The pope in case you didn't get who I meant. It's called faith. For people who have it then what he said makes sense. If you've not got faith it's daft. However ridiculing someone for their faith/beliefs is a little... well intolerant I guess.

BTW to people who've met him he's actually not a bad guy and is effective in whatever role he's been in (both before he stood for an election and after). BTW he got the leadership because he's bothered to go around the country to his party's constituency meetings to discuss their local issues and listen to them. He listens to his constituents too, always has. That's possibly why he turned a solid Tory seat into a solid Lib Dem seat. Impressive how that happened. Used to see Tory banners throughout his constituency before he won it. Fields by the side of main roads mostly Tory signs with some Lib Dem banners and perhaps I saw one Labour sign. Now? You really only see Lib Dem signs and the odd Tory one. He'll never get that in many Tory or even Labour constituencies but I bet he's galvanised the local activists by his connections. I think eventually he'll set the groundwork for the next, more charismatic leader of their party to gain the seats they lost. Just my opinion though, still he's a lot better than Corbyn IMHO.

I know who you meant, it doesn't make it any better though. Pretty sad really that humans can invent weapons of mass destruction, space stations, carbon fibre bike wheels and yet plenty are thicker than a Labrador when it comes to deities.

narbs

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election. If I was May I'd be looking at how I could undo the 5 year fixed term legislation and calling an election for November.

She'd be guaranteed to have a majority to get through whatever she wanted.

narbs

It also means that for the first time I probably won't go out door-knocking at election time, a view that's shared with a lot of people I know.

Of course, it won't matter because we'll have loads of new 'supporters' who will do it for me.

Oh, perhaps not.

joelsim

narbs wrote:

It also means that for the first time I probably won't go out door-knocking at election time, a view that's shared with a lot of people I know.

Of course, it won't matter because we'll have loads of new 'supporters' who will do it for me.

Oh, perhaps not.

Spot on.

.@election_data @YouGov Lab l'ship exit poll

Members who joined:
Pre May 2015
Smith 63%
Corbyn 37%

Since JC elected
Corbyn 83%
Smith 15%

Make what you will of how representative of the Labour vote this is.

Duh.

joelsim

Interesting reading. Possibly a little harsh in some respects, but an awful lot of truth in there too.

Read Corbyn has won - again. This could be the end of the Labour party - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/this ... our-party/

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.

I take it you mean the 83 election?

That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.

I take it you mean the 83 election?

That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.

Happy days!!

narbs

Joelsim wrote:

Interesting reading. Possibly a little harsh in some respects, but an awful lot of truth in there too.

Read Corbyn has won - again. This could be the end of the Labour party - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/this ... our-party/

It's a b0llocks article - the level of anti-semitism in the party has been hilariously overblown. You only have to talk to some north London Tories to see that.

On the other hand I'm glad I'm also a member of the Coop Party because that's where my efforts will be going from now on.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.

I take it you mean the 83 election?

That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.

I think this post sums it up really.

You can have plenty good intentions, but if your face doesn't fit and it's not the right time...

Corbyn has a lot to offer, he is a man of principle, but it isn't going to work in a political sense. He's an activist and often has a point, but all of that is pointless and actually counter-productive in the biggest way possible.

narbs

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.

I take it you mean the 83 election?

That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.

No, I meant 93 when Kinnock lost.

Unfortunately May et al have equally no idea how to manage the economy (something inherited from Cameron and Osborne) but they seem to be entirely in step with the electorate who are equally clueless.

joelsim

narbs wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Interesting reading. Possibly a little harsh in some respects, but an awful lot of truth in there too.

Read Corbyn has won - again. This could be the end of the Labour party - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/this ... our-party/

It's a b0llocks article - the level of anti-semitism in the party has been hilariously overblown. You only have to talk to some north London Tories to see that.

On the other hand I'm glad I'm also a member of the Coop Party because that's where my efforts will be going from now on.

Take out the racial elements, that's what I meant by harsh. Some of the rest of it rings very true.

ballysmate

narbs wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Interesting reading. Possibly a little harsh in some respects, but an awful lot of truth in there too.

Read Corbyn has won - again. This could be the end of the Labour party - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/this ... our-party/

It's a b0llocks article - the level of anti-semitism in the party has been hilariously overblown. You only have to talk to some north London Tories to see that.

On the other hand I'm glad I'm also a member of the Coop Party because that's where my efforts will be going from now on.

Of course there is no anti semitism. Lady Chakrabarti said so in her report that was bought and paid for with her peerage.

narbs

Joelsim wrote:

Corbyn has a lot to offer, he is a man of principle, but it isn't going to work in a political sense. He's an activist and often has a point, but all of that is pointless and actually counter-productive in the biggest way possible.

See, I can't see this. He's not a man of principle at all - he's a man who's made a career of opposing everything. Something which, as the Liberals found out in the last govt, is very difficult to carry off if people actually entrust you with doing things.

His whole anti-Blairite stance of the last 12 months has been embarrassing. Blair's governments did more good for this country, and for the people that Corbyn claims to care for, than he could ever dream of.

joelsim

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.

I take it you mean the 83 election?

That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.

No, I meant 93 when Kinnock lost.

Unfortunately May et al have equally no idea how to manage the economy (something inherited from Cameron and Osborne) but they seem to be entirely in step with the electorate who are equally clueless.

To be honest the economy is a massive problem for all post 2009. The debt is huge, so f*cking huge as to be a problem. With what's happened this year so far it's only going to get far worse. Blame Brown for spending the silver when we were booming, blame the bankers, blame austerity, the simple fact is we have an ageing population who need more welfare than expected, and now Brexit. Hot potatoes anyone?

But equally, Corbyn (nor any Labour leader since Blair) has had the slightest inkling on how to do things properly as regards the economy, nor it seems what that means to those who need it most.

narbs

Ballysmate wrote:

narbs wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Interesting reading. Possibly a little harsh in some respects, but an awful lot of truth in there too.

Read Corbyn has won - again. This could be the end of the Labour party - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/this ... our-party/

It's a b0llocks article - the level of anti-semitism in the party has been hilariously overblown. You only have to talk to some north London Tories to see that.

On the other hand I'm glad I'm also a member of the Coop Party because that's where my efforts will be going from now on.

Of course there is no anti semitism. Lady Chakrabarti said so in her report that was bought and paid for with her peerage.

Who said there was no anti-Semitism?

joelsim

narbs wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Corbyn has a lot to offer, he is a man of principle, but it isn't going to work in a political sense. He's an activist and often has a point, but all of that is pointless and actually counter-productive in the biggest way possible.

See, I can't see this. He's not a man of principle at all - he's a man who's made a career of opposing everything. Something which, as the Liberals found out in the last govt, is very difficult to carry off if people actually entrust you with doing things.

His whole anti-Blairite stance of the last 12 months has been embarrassing. Blair's governments did more good for this country, and for the people that Corbyn claims to care for, than he could ever dream of.

I think we're saying the same thing here.

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.

I take it you mean the 83 election?

That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.

No, I meant 93 when Kinnock lost.

Unfortunately May et al have equally no idea how to manage the economy (something inherited from Cameron and Osborne) but they seem to be entirely in step with the electorate who are equally clueless.

There was no general election in 93 so I guess you mean 92.

We've had the debates about economics before. You only need to look at the state of the UK economy in 1979 and 2010 after the last two labour administrations to know all you need to know about Labours economic imcompetence.

narbs

Joelsim wrote:

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.

I take it you mean the 83 election?

That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.

No, I meant 93 when Kinnock lost.

Unfortunately May et al have equally no idea how to manage the economy (something inherited from Cameron and Osborne) but they seem to be entirely in step with the electorate who are equally clueless.

To be honest the economy is a massive problem for all post 2009. The debt is huge, so f*cking huge as to be a problem. With what's happened this year so far it's only going to get far worse. Blame Brown for spending the silver when we were booming, blame the bankers, blame austerity, the simple fact is we have an ageing population who need more welfare than expected, and now Brexit. Hot potatoes anyone?

But equally, Corbyn (nor any Labour leader since Blair) has had the slightest inkling on how to do things properly as regards the economy, nor it seems what that means to those who need it most.

The debt isn't huge though. It is probably less proportionally than my mortgage or yours.

At a time of virtually free money we should be borrowing to build capital programmes- HS2 and the electrification of GWR shouldn't even be a question. Instead we subsidise private companies to do work, badly - why are we paying private train companies to deliver an awful service?

We have no post-EU membership plan. Every statement by the three ministers in charge of negotiating our withdrawal are immediately slapped down by the PM. It's a joke amongst senior diplomats.

And at at time like this when Labour should have a raft of policies for the next election we're in a hilarious mess. Which, funnily, isn't hilarious for the people in the country who need a Labour govt.

ballysmate

narbs wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

narbs wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Interesting reading. Possibly a little harsh in some respects, but an awful lot of truth in there too.

Read Corbyn has won - again. This could be the end of the Labour party - http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/this ... our-party/

It's a b0llocks article - the level of anti-semitism in the party has been hilariously overblown. You only have to talk to some north London Tories to see that.

On the other hand I'm glad I'm also a member of the Coop Party because that's where my efforts will be going from now on.

Of course there is no anti semitism. Lady Chakrabarti said so in her report that was bought and paid for with her peerage.

Who said there was no anti-Semitism?

Lady C. Apparently Labour suffers "occasionally toxic atmosphere", whatever the fcuk that is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36672022