Discussion
legzr1 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Better to dismiss the link in ignorance than admit you may have it wrong.In the post midenginedcoupe replied to, I was asking a question "was it not the case" rather than staking a claim. As such, the first reply and your bogus suggestion regarding some sort of admission are without foundation.
The clainm I did stake was that wiki is an unreliable source because it's so manipulable by activists. That remains the case, even if it gets something right on occasions.
Keep trying hard but like Corbyn and Labour's similarly dire position it won't do you much good.
The problem is that Corbyn is a 'proper' Labour man and most of the Labour party (including the shadow cabinet) aren't actually true 'Labour' at all - they're more centrist than that. The voters rejected the left-of-centre politics that Miliband brought and heading further left is only going to hurt them all the more.
What they need to do is split. Leave Labour to the unions and other idiots - they'll make some noise but will die eventually and will never see power. A new party holding the more central ground would actually be something of a challenge to the Tories; most of the Labour voters would follow them (rather than Old Labour) and they'd be likely to pinch a large chunk of any disillusioned left-leaning Tories. They would also, finally, be free of the ridiculous union tentacles and control.
However, as they stand Labour are wholly unelectable and long may that continue. The only shame is that a competent Opposition is an important part of the process to provide checks and balances and Labour will - and are - failing at that too.
An utter disaster and a shambles of a party run by and filled with morons.
What they need to do is split. Leave Labour to the unions and other idiots - they'll make some noise but will die eventually and will never see power. A new party holding the more central ground would actually be something of a challenge to the Tories; most of the Labour voters would follow them (rather than Old Labour) and they'd be likely to pinch a large chunk of any disillusioned left-leaning Tories. They would also, finally, be free of the ridiculous union tentacles and control.
However, as they stand Labour are wholly unelectable and long may that continue. The only shame is that a competent Opposition is an important part of the process to provide checks and balances and Labour will - and are - failing at that too.
An utter disaster and a shambles of a party run by and filled with morons.
turbobloke said:
Desperate personal stuff there.
In the post midenginedcoupe replied to, I was asking a question "was it not the case" rather than staking a claim. As such, the first reply and your bogus suggestion regarding some sort of admission are without foundation.
The clainm I did stake was that wiki is an unreliable source because it's so manipulable by activists. That remains the case, even if it gets something right on occasions.
Keep trying hard but like Corbyn and Labour's similarly dire position it won't do you much good.
Yes, ok.In the post midenginedcoupe replied to, I was asking a question "was it not the case" rather than staking a claim. As such, the first reply and your bogus suggestion regarding some sort of admission are without foundation.
The clainm I did stake was that wiki is an unreliable source because it's so manipulable by activists. That remains the case, even if it gets something right on occasions.
Keep trying hard but like Corbyn and Labour's similarly dire position it won't do you much good.
Still, your 'question' has been answered, it 'wasn't the case' and the link in question had merit - you'd have known this if you'd simply clicked the link.
Desperate?
No.
Personal?
Ha!
Apologies if I've upset your frail sensibilities.
Now, what say another 80+ pages discussing a no-hoper clown from the left without a chance of winning anything?
legzr1 said:
turbobloke said:
Desperate personal stuff there.
In the post midenginedcoupe replied to, I was asking a question "was it not the case" rather than staking a claim. As such, the first reply and your bogus suggestion regarding some sort of admission are without foundation.
The clainm I did stake was that wiki is an unreliable source because it's so manipulable by activists. That remains the case, even if it gets something right on occasions.
Keep trying hard but like Corbyn and Labour's similarly dire position it won't do you much good.
Yes, ok.In the post midenginedcoupe replied to, I was asking a question "was it not the case" rather than staking a claim. As such, the first reply and your bogus suggestion regarding some sort of admission are without foundation.
The clainm I did stake was that wiki is an unreliable source because it's so manipulable by activists. That remains the case, even if it gets something right on occasions.
Keep trying hard but like Corbyn and Labour's similarly dire position it won't do you much good.
Still, your 'question' has been answered, it 'wasn't the case' and the link in question had merit - you'd have known this if you'd simply clicked the link.
Desperate?
No.
Personal?
Ha!
Apologies if I've upset your frail sensibilities.
You were simply wrong. In contrast, I asked a question so had nothing to admit or defend.
Simple
Corbyn remains a loser 'leading' a Party heading into oblivion and defeat in 2020.
Funk said:
The problem is that Corbyn is a 'proper' Labour man and most of the Labour party (including the shadow cabinet) aren't actually true 'Labour' at all - they're more centrist than that. The voters rejected the left-of-centre politics that Miliband brought and heading further left is only going to hurt them all the more.
What they need to do is split. Leave Labour to the unions and other idiots - they'll make some noise but will die eventually and will never see power. A new party holding the more central ground would actually be something of a challenge to the Tories; most of the Labour voters would follow them (rather than Old Labour) and they'd be likely to pinch a large chunk of any disillusioned left-leaning Tories. They would also, finally, be free of the ridiculous union tentacles and control.
However, as they stand Labour are wholly unelectable and long may that continue. The only shame is that a competent Opposition is an important part of the process to provide checks and balances and Labour will - and are - failing at that too.
An utter disaster and a shambles of a party run by and filled with morons.
Absolutely. A split and a rebrand. Labour could be, maybe the "National Socialists" and the centrists could be the "The Party For Moderate Progress Within the Bounds of the Law " party.What they need to do is split. Leave Labour to the unions and other idiots - they'll make some noise but will die eventually and will never see power. A new party holding the more central ground would actually be something of a challenge to the Tories; most of the Labour voters would follow them (rather than Old Labour) and they'd be likely to pinch a large chunk of any disillusioned left-leaning Tories. They would also, finally, be free of the ridiculous union tentacles and control.
However, as they stand Labour are wholly unelectable and long may that continue. The only shame is that a competent Opposition is an important part of the process to provide checks and balances and Labour will - and are - failing at that too.
An utter disaster and a shambles of a party run by and filled with morons.
Zod said:
So unions plus £3 payers - what a combination! The party's owners plus a mix of entryists from the far left and opportunists from the right whose interest was solely in sabotaging Labour.
That makes for a compelling mandate.
That's not the way I read it.That makes for a compelling mandate.
He got the undeniable support of the rank and file party membership as well. 49.6% in the first round of voting in a four horse race is pretty compelling.
So he has the backing of the members, the unions and the £3ers.
Just not the MPs nor the party 'machine'
So he'll have to be a political genius to get anywhere.
Which he isn't, so he wont!
desolate said:
Zod said:
So unions plus £3 payers - what a combination! The party's owners plus a mix of entryists from the far left and opportunists from the right whose interest was solely in sabotaging Labour.
That makes for a compelling mandate.
That's not the way I read it.That makes for a compelling mandate.
He got the undeniable support of the rank and file party membership as well. 49.6% in the first round of voting in a four horse race is pretty compelling.
So he has the backing of the members, the unions and the £3ers.
Just not the MPs nor the party 'machine'
So he'll have to be a political genius to get anywhere.
Which he isn't, so he wont!
He's way out of his depth, a laughing stock and an embarrassment.
Symbolica said:
I thought this was quite an insightful article into where Corbyn may well fall down, if it happens:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015...
I think, Portillo (as ever) gave a very seasoned account of Corbyn on his show last night.http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff