|
Forums69
Topics113,624
Posts1,341,347
Members1,807
| |
Most Online731
Jan 14th, 2020
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1550792
27/09/2015 20:14
27/09/2015 20:14
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,617
SE Essex
charlie_croker
I need some sleep
|
I need some sleep
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,617
SE Essex
|
Well I voted for him and joined the Labour party, I think that a lot of people have missed the point, in the 70s a similar thing happened to the Conservative Party, a challenger with grassroots appeal overturned the establishment.
Why can't the same thing happen to the left? as well as Right wing?
I should be a natural Tory (Hell I was a member of the Conservative Party) , I earn an extremely generous remuneration package, own my own house, (Paid the mortgage off in full earlier this year). BUT, I just cannot warm to these Eton boys. (and that was before the Pigs head scandal came out).
I think society has become unjust, unfair and it needs to change.
So come the next election, I will be contributing towards the Labour party and will be campaigning on their behalf, strangely I have found a number of my friends, all in similar circumstances to myself, feeling the same.
Happy
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551064
30/09/2015 12:43
30/09/2015 12:43
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
A Facebook friend of mine posted this morning about how Labour were positioning themselves on the left to attract those who had become disillusioned by New Labour and that they're weren't going to move right to attract away Conservative/UKIP voters. I looked at the numbers and responded thusly... Unfortunately the maths doesn't hold on this one. If we re-run the May election and assume that everyone is going to vote the same way (i.e. we're making the assumption that Corbyn won't lose any Labour centrist voters - this is obviously an unsafe assumption, but let's run with it)
On top of May's votes lets say that 50% of those voting Lib Dem or Green are the disillusioned ex-Labour voters, who are all going to come home to the party. So in each constituency we'll add 50% of the combined LD and Green vote to Labour's vote and...
Labour would pick up an extra 15 seats. They'd be sufficiently strategic to remove the Tory's parliamentary majority so we'd be left with a minority Conservative government or a Conservative-led coalition, but we'd still have a Conservative government.
To get from there to a commons majority Labour is looking at coaxing out people who stayed at home in May. To get that commons majority it would need 417,000 people across 94 constituencies to (a) turn out and (b) vote Labour. Nationally that equates to about 2.8M non-voters turning out to vote Labour.
I'm not saying that this is impossible, but those are the numbers and they don't paint a picture of electoral victory for Corbyn, because:
1. He will lose voters from the right of the party, and probably MPs as well.
2. Putting defections from the Lib Dems and Greens at 50% is wildly enthusiastic.
3. The defining feature of non-voters is that they don't vote.
Like it or not, Blair won by moving Labour to the centre, where they could attract the left wings of the Conservatives. If you rule out doing that then you're positioning the party for defeat and the country for another half decade of Tory rule.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551069
30/09/2015 13:18
30/09/2015 13:18
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
Jim_Clennell
Forum veteran
|
Forum veteran
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
|
Andrew, when it comes to fiddling with numbers, I'm not going to challenge you. Frankly, I don't think I'm challenging the assertion in the final sentence of your reply either.
However, there are at least 2 ways in which the argument you give above may not end up with that result.
Fanciful way: The voting British people awaken from a centre-right slumber and Corbyn's message suddenly inspires a new wave of political thought; it touches a nerve with disillusioned Lib-Dems, fed up of no longer standing for radicalism, with Tories who suddenly have a crisis of conscience (we're running with unsafe assumptions here), with current and former Labour supporters who feel as thought the Party has come home and... a lot of people who have never hitherto engaged with politics, but suddenly see that maybe it's not all about shiny suits and slick PR. An uprising of reasonable, untidily dressed, previously apathetic ordinary people sweeps Corbyn to power.
More likely way: Corbyn and McDonnell enjoy a short-lived upwelling of support from people pissed off with the status quo. In a couple of years' time, it has died away, but left a residual left-leaning imprint on the ensuing leadership challenge. Enter the new, smarter and far-more electable Labour leader, still espousing a watered down version of the Corbyn message, but mainly destined to win because it's a 2-party system and we like to give the other guy a go after a decade or so, without giving much of a toss about his (hey, or maybe her) policies.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551070
30/09/2015 13:27
30/09/2015 13:27
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
And if the SNP were still returning MPs in single figures that view may have held some water. But whilst there's fifty-seven seats that will only vote for a left of centre party, Blair's soft right centrism is dead in the water. True, Blair won three elections, but he never increased his majority through any of the terms - each election was a thinner win.
The defining feature of non-voters isn't necessarily that they don't vote, it may be that they were never offered a reason to.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551073
30/09/2015 14:48
30/09/2015 14:48
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
I think that to be fair to Blair he was, up until 9/11, a pretty good progressive PM. He got through minimum wage laws, increased employment rights, the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act, he lifted the ban on gays in the military and lowered the age of consent for homosexuals to match the age for heterosexuals.
The war on terror rightly tarnished his reputation, but I don't think you can accuse the start of his premiership of being "soft-right" and, as you point out, that was when his majority was highest.
Not that it matters, because the SNP will work with whoever it suits them to work with. They are a nationalist party, not a progressive one and they will drop any progressive objections at the drop of a hat if it moves them closer to nationalist objectives. They're also fairly terrible at governing (look at the state of Scotland's secondary education and its police service) so it remains to be seen whether they'll maintain enough nationalist support to re-take 57 seats in 2020.
Even if they do Labour would need to take 38 seats more in 2020 for a Labour/SNP alliance to hold a majority, and even if they did that it's possible that by then EVEL laws will mean they couldn't effectively govern anyway.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed anyway, as I would dearly love to see a left-leaning government in power.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: AndrewR]
#1551078
30/09/2015 15:07
30/09/2015 15:07
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
but I don't think you can accuse the start of his premiership of being "soft-right" and, as you point out, that was when his majority was highest. So he was most popular when he was most leftwing.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551079
30/09/2015 15:13
30/09/2015 15:13
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
Yes, but he was only mildly left of centre; his government was still sticking to Tory spending plans, introducing PPPs to the health and education sectors and didn't start renationalising services (but did deregulate the banking sector).
Basically I'm saying that because he was at his most popular when at his left-ist it doesn't follow that somebody even further left would be more popular.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551080
30/09/2015 15:23
30/09/2015 15:23
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
I know, I'm just pulling yer whatever it is people pull these days.
Interesting the recent political separation over the self-employed though. Corbyn offering maternity/paternity and other PAYE type benefits and Osbourne floating the possibility of removing travel and subsistence expenses. Currently there are 4.6m self-employed, some of whom have been pushed into it, but a big segment is the post-Thatcher Tory-voting white van man/woman who could now benefit under a Labour government.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551087
30/09/2015 16:07
30/09/2015 16:07
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
I'd imagine the Tories will counter with claims that Labour are the party of high taxation and unstable economies, so that whatever the hard-working self-employed person gains in short-term benefits they'll lose in higher personal taxes/a housing market crash/the whole economy going to the wall/zombie apocalypse/etc.
It's hardly original, but it seems to work for them.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551142
01/10/2015 00:05
01/10/2015 00:05
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 417
uk
OnlyItalian
Enjoying the ride
|
Enjoying the ride
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 417
uk
|
IMO he's shown poor judgement on a couple of occasions already.
And this whole idea of printing money to build houses and for infrastructure projects is madness, particularly in a country which is a net importer.
"Proud owner of LE141 and a 99 VIS broomie "
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551266
01/10/2015 18:00
01/10/2015 18:00
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,390
Essex
Trappy
Forum is my life
|
Forum is my life
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,390
Essex
|
So what are everyone's thoughts on the following... What difference does it make which party / face they're putting forwards, they're all bought and paid for by Israel and will continue with their plan for world dominance and 'greater israel'? The only things that shines in Corbyn for me are that he reputedly rubbished the 911 narrative and didn't stand up and sing for a person known to be close to the Rothschilds in support of a war that was fought on behalf of Zionism to secure Israel, led by a fat drunk with a gambling addiction who was in their pocket. I reckon he 'might' even hold his ground when they start leaning on him  Flame suit and tin hat on 
F****** b****** thing...
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Trappy]
#1551268
01/10/2015 18:05
01/10/2015 18:05
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
Jim_Clennell
Forum veteran
|
Forum veteran
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
|
So what are everyone's thoughts on the following... What difference does it make which party / face they're putting forwards, they're all bought and paid for by Israel and will continue with their plan for world dominance and 'greater israel'? The only things that shines in Corbyn for me are that he reputedly rubbished the 911 narrative and didn't stand up and sing for a person known to be close to the Rothschilds in support of a war that was fought on behalf of Zionism to secure Israel, led by a fat drunk with a gambling addiction who was in their pocket. I reckon he 'might' even hold his ground when they start leaning on him Flame suit and tin hat on Er, what?
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Trappy]
#1551270
01/10/2015 18:20
01/10/2015 18:20
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
AndrewR
I AM a Coop
|
I AM a Coop
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,546
Northumberland
|
So what are everyone's thoughts on the following... I'm always fascinated by these 'Zionists control the world' conspiracy theories. They have governments in their pockets, control the world's banks, execute secret plots without the truth ever getting out because they also dominate the media and can orchestrate wars at the drop of a hat. If all of that is true then they *should* be running the world, they seem like a bunch of guys who really know how to get things done.
Dear monos, a secret truth.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Jim_Clennell]
#1551345
02/10/2015 09:00
02/10/2015 09:00
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,144
Southampton, Hants
Roadking
Club member 1809
|
Club member 1809
Forum is my life
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,144
Southampton, Hants
|
Right wing poster alert! 
in support of a war that was fought on behalf of Zionism to secure Israel, led by a fat drunk with a gambling addiction who was in their pocket.
Assuming you're talking about WW2 then I think you've been listening to too many Nazi apologists. As for the anthem people are missing a point here. Whether you support the monarchy or not, it is the "NATIONAL anthem" Not the "Royal Anthem", or the "Queen's Anthem". It is the anthem of the United Kingdom of which he would like to be the PM. If he can't display enough respect to sing our national Anthem, then he shouldn't aspire to run the country. I think he's a nut job, anyone putting a committed vegan into agriculture is seriously taking the piss or is deluded, next we'll have Rolf Harris as Children's minister. I won't spend two pages saying how I feel about his love affair with the Fenian terrorists or his attitude to the Falklands (needless to say when the Argentinian witch says they've now got a friend...). But that doesn't detract from the fact I also think he has sincerity and dignity missing from politicians for a long time. I respect him for that.
"RK's way seems the most sensible to me". ali_hire 16 Dec 2010
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Roadking]
#1551348
02/10/2015 09:59
02/10/2015 09:59
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,521
Aldershot
PeteP
Hon Club Member 005, Membership Secretary
|
Hon Club Member 005, Membership Secretary
Forum Fossil
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,521
Aldershot
|
Whether you support the monarchy or not, it is the "NATIONAL anthem" Not the "Royal Anthem", or the "Queen's Anthem". It is the anthem of the United Kingdom of which he would like to be the PM. If he can't display enough respect to sing our national Anthem, then he shouldn't aspire to run the country.
I think that there are plenty of loyal UK citizens who simply have an issue with the words and dreadful dirge that we have as a National Anthem. I really don't see why it should be considered sacrosanct. Times change: We no longer sing of " Rebellious Scots to crush" for example, so what is wrong with an adult debate about the present anthem's relevance in the 21st century. As an aside, have you considered that Jeremy Corbyn simply can't sing and was protecting the ears of those around him?
16VT and X1/9 1500
We must all do our part for the planet.
I unplugged a row of electric cars that nobody was using.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Roadking]
#1551352
02/10/2015 10:21
02/10/2015 10:21
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
Jim_Clennell
Forum veteran
|
Forum veteran
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,603
Corridor of Uncertainty
|
As for the anthem people are missing a point here. Whether you support the monarchy or not, it is the "NATIONAL anthem" Not the "Royal Anthem", or the "Queen's Anthem". It is the anthem of the United Kingdom of which he would like to be the PM. If he can't display enough respect to sing our national Anthem, then he shouldn't aspire to run the country.
I'm not sure that's the point I take from it, RK. I think it is perfectly fine for an atheist with Republican beliefs not to sing a song asking God to save a monarch. The establishment is very fond of telling people that if they want change, they should do it from within - this is what that looks like. As has been pointed out by many people - including former service personnel - he did attend and he did so with the dignity you mention yourself. Also, I'm pretty sure Corbyn would have been branded a disgusting hypocrite by the media if he had sung the anthem.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Jim_Clennell]
#1551362
02/10/2015 12:05
02/10/2015 12:05
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,144
Southampton, Hants
Roadking
Club member 1809
|
Club member 1809
Forum is my life
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,144
Southampton, Hants
|
As has been pointed out by many people - including former service personnel - he did attend and he did so with the dignity you mention yourself.
I would say he had no choice than to attend. This is one ex-serviceman (one of many) that was not impressed with his stance, and who despises his affection for the IRA (shared by his shadow chancellor) and his stance on the Falklands.
"RK's way seems the most sensible to me". ali_hire 16 Dec 2010
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551432
02/10/2015 23:59
02/10/2015 23:59
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
FreakinFreak
Unregistered
|
RK, sounds like you're going to join up with that un-named General who seriously suggested a military coup if JC looked like getting his feet under the desk.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Cooperman]
#1551434
03/10/2015 00:14
03/10/2015 00:14
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,988
Sunny Darlo
Wishy
Forum is my life
|
Forum is my life
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,988
Sunny Darlo
|
I don't think Jim is running for office though...
Up yours Photobucket.
|
|
|
Re: Jeremy Corbyn
[Re: Trappy]
#1551441
03/10/2015 03:41
03/10/2015 03:41
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 417
uk
OnlyItalian
Enjoying the ride
|
Enjoying the ride
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 417
uk
|
So what are everyone's thoughts on the following...
What difference does it make which party / face they're putting forwards, they're all bought and paid for by Israel and will continue with their plan for world dominance and 'greater israel'?o
The only things that shines in Corbyn for me are that he reputedly rubbished the 911 narrative and didn't stand up and sing for a person known to be close to the Rothschilds in support of a war that was fought on behalf of Zionism to secure Israel, led by a fat drunk with a gambling addiction who was in their pocket.
Everyone who's ever read the basics about this ZOG crap knows that the idea was invented and peddled by neo-nazis and white supremacists in the 70s and 80s. However, I'm still undecided about what happened on 9/11. Very strange that. Even if molten aluminium from the Boeing explains the molten material flowing down the building, it mixing with water causing the secondary explosions and symmetrical, near free fall speed collapse (seems far fetched to me), that still doesn't explain building 7. So I'm not totally averse to conspiracy theories, just not this ZOG crap which can't even be called a theory because you need evidence for that.
Last edited by OnlyItalian; 03/10/2015 04:04.
"Proud owner of LE141 and a 99 VIS broomie "
|
|
|
|
