Discussion
Toaster said:
He is not up for PM he is up for leader of the Labour party
Given that blue and red are the only parties to provide a PM in the last century or so he's effectively* up for PM. As well you know.The Greens are irrelevant.
*Bet that's the first time the word has been used in a sentence about J. Corbyn.
technodup said:
Toaster said:
He is not up for PM he is up for leader of the Labour party
Given that blue and red are the only parties to provide a PM in the last century or so he's effectively* up for PM. As well you know.The Greens are irrelevant.
*Bet that's the first time the word has been used in a sentence about J. Corbyn.
I have and know the difference between a leadership election of a political party and a General election, do you? Toaster said:
... My comments have been to point out that the negative comments made up against this man may be ill founded...
Ill founded, oh dear, you haven't thought that through have you? Have you actually been reading this thread? Turbobloke and several other posters have provided numerous links to facts and first hand accounts about Corbyn which any sane person can only draw negative conclusions from. The man is an arse of the highest water, he's not fit to lead himself down the garden path, never mind anyone else.What is the point of the Labour party's existence, if it is not to become an effective government?
From your replies so far (I can't really call them answers since you seem incapable of answering anything that's put to you) it's reasonably safe to assume that :
a) you're wilfully naïve,
b) deluded,
c) JawKnee,
d) twelve and a half, but only just,
e) all of the above.
Toaster said:
ThunderGuts said:
ThunderGuts said:
Toaster, would you vote for Corbyn to be PM?
Or should I 'be better than that?' For pointing this out?
Please just answer my points or say that you refuse? Or confirm you are not prepared to answer 'questions other than ones about about the NHS, which is why we are here'??
Or am I now being naive???
Shame..... You certainly do respond to many posts.
JawKnee hasn't been around because he's too busy making videos fueled by paranoia and full of inaccuracies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZOdtapoycU
I'd love to have seen Paxman tearing into some of these nuggets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZOdtapoycU
I'd love to have seen Paxman tearing into some of these nuggets.
t? Wow!!!! 
Toaster said:
ThunderGuts said:
ThunderGuts said:
Toaster, would you vote for Corbyn to be PM?
The U.K. Democratic system is really quite simple. It's a representative parliamentary democracy where the electorate votes regularly to send representatives to Westminster. Those representatives can form parties but the nub of the point is that laws are passed, or not, by whomever can command a majority of those representatives.
It really is as simple as that.
There is no other point to it; there are no medals or significance for being able to muster say 200 MPs who are sat on their hands unable to influence anything because the Tory PM has a 100 seat majority. No one cares. The title of 'labour leader' is utterly meaningless unless the parliamentary party is able to challenge for a majority and therefore provide a possible alternative government.
I wonder whether the Corbynites/momentum gang actually *get* that. There seems to be a fundamental cognitive disfunction when it comes to understanding how UK democracy works. Owning a militant style take over of a broken party does not get them 1 inch closer to power (unless through some kind of revolution). The only game in town is actually being able to persuade enough people to vote for representatives that can form a majority in the HoC. At least Trots and Stalinists back in the day were wise to this which is why they preached revolution. This latest bunch of cockwombles don't seem to have even worked that out; they just appear to assume that somehow they'll 'achieve' something by having a vain old fool sit on top of the Labour Party for a few years, with an ever declining number of seats. I have to admit it's all abit headscratching.
Edited by Ridgemont on Sunday 28th August 00:22
Ridgemont said:
It's this kind of stuff that really makes me wonder what is actually taught in these citizenship lessons at school.
The U.K. Democratic system is really quite simple. It's a representative parliamentary democracy where the electorate votes regularly to send representatives to Westminster. Those representatives can form parties but the nub of the point is that laws are passed, or not, by whomever can command a majority of those representatives.
It really is as simple as that.
There is no other point to it; there are no medals or significance for being able to muster say 200 MPs who are sat on their hands unable to influence anything because the Tory PM has a 100 seat majority. No one cares. The title of 'labour leader' is utterly meaningless unless the parliamentary party is able to challenge for a majority and therefore provide a possible alternative government.
I wonder whether the Corbynites/momentum gang actually *get* that. There seems to be a fundamental cognitive disfunction when it comes to understanding how UK democracy works. Owning a militant style take over of a broken party does not get them 1 inch closer to power (unless through some kind of revolution). The only game in town is actually being able to persuade enough people to vote for representatives that can form a majority in the HoC. At least Trots and Stalinists back in the day were wise to this which is why they preached revolution. This latest bunch of cockwombles don't seem to have even worked that out; they just appear to assume that somehow they'll 'achieve' something by having a vain old fool sit on top of the Labour Party for a few years, with an ever declining number of seats. I have to admit it's all abit headscratching.
Excellent, well done that man !The U.K. Democratic system is really quite simple. It's a representative parliamentary democracy where the electorate votes regularly to send representatives to Westminster. Those representatives can form parties but the nub of the point is that laws are passed, or not, by whomever can command a majority of those representatives.
It really is as simple as that.
There is no other point to it; there are no medals or significance for being able to muster say 200 MPs who are sat on their hands unable to influence anything because the Tory PM has a 100 seat majority. No one cares. The title of 'labour leader' is utterly meaningless unless the parliamentary party is able to challenge for a majority and therefore provide a possible alternative government.
I wonder whether the Corbynites/momentum gang actually *get* that. There seems to be a fundamental cognitive disfunction when it comes to understanding how UK democracy works. Owning a militant style take over of a broken party does not get them 1 inch closer to power (unless through some kind of revolution). The only game in town is actually being able to persuade enough people to vote for representatives that can form a majority in the HoC. At least Trots and Stalinists back in the day were wise to this which is why they preached revolution. This latest bunch of cockwombles don't seem to have even worked that out; they just appear to assume that somehow they'll 'achieve' something by having a vain old fool sit on top of the Labour Party for a few years, with an ever declining number of seats. I have to admit it's all abit headscratching.
Edited by Ridgemont on Sunday 28th August 00:22
I was beginning to think that I'd 'lost it' and that these Corbynites had worked out a clever ruse by which they would achieve something meaningful. Ah well, at least it keeps quite a lot of them busy, and with no prospect whatsoever of affecting the running of the country.
Ridgemont said:
I wonder whether the Corbynites/momentum gang actually *get* that. There seems to be a fundamental cognitive disfunction when it comes to understanding how UK democracy works. Owning a militant style take over of a broken party does not get them 1 inch closer to power (unless through some kind of revolution). The only game in town is actually being able to persuade enough people to vote for representatives that can form a majority in the HoC. At least Trots and Stalinists back in the day were wise to this which is why they preached revolution...
I assume that they aren't all stupid. They know there aren't enough unreformed trades-unionists, angry public sector workers and students to ever get a majority. So what they want is to hijack the Labour Party and use it as a propaganda tool to bring the ghastly capitalist system down without all that tiresome bother of being in charge.
As the majority of his supporters are well to the left of the Labour Party as we knew it, they could have just formed (yet another) left wing party of their own, but this wouldn't have Labour's party machinery to use.
I must admit, it's all a bit baffling to someone like me that believes in parliamentary democracy, but it must be frustrating if you passionately believe in a bunch of stuff - and being left-wing - believe that stuff to be unarguably correct, and yet the electorate simply don't agree with you.
Robertj21a said:
Ridgemont said:
It's this kind of stuff that really makes me wonder what is actually taught in these citizenship lessons at school.
The U.K. Democratic system is really quite simple. It's a representative parliamentary democracy where the electorate votes regularly to send representatives to Westminster. Those representatives can form parties but the nub of the point is that laws are passed, or not, by whomever can command a majority of those representatives.
It really is as simple as that.
There is no other point to it; there are no medals or significance for being able to muster say 200 MPs who are sat on their hands unable to influence anything because the Tory PM has a 100 seat majority. No one cares. The title of 'labour leader' is utterly meaningless unless the parliamentary party is able to challenge for a majority and therefore provide a possible alternative government.
I wonder whether the Corbynites/momentum gang actually *get* that. There seems to be a fundamental cognitive disfunction when it comes to understanding how UK democracy works. Owning a militant style take over of a broken party does not get them 1 inch closer to power (unless through some kind of revolution). The only game in town is actually being able to persuade enough people to vote for representatives that can form a majority in the HoC. At least Trots and Stalinists back in the day were wise to this which is why they preached revolution. This latest bunch of cockwombles don't seem to have even worked that out; they just appear to assume that somehow they'll 'achieve' something by having a vain old fool sit on top of the Labour Party for a few years, with an ever declining number of seats. I have to admit it's all abit headscratching.
Excellent, well done that man !The U.K. Democratic system is really quite simple. It's a representative parliamentary democracy where the electorate votes regularly to send representatives to Westminster. Those representatives can form parties but the nub of the point is that laws are passed, or not, by whomever can command a majority of those representatives.
It really is as simple as that.
There is no other point to it; there are no medals or significance for being able to muster say 200 MPs who are sat on their hands unable to influence anything because the Tory PM has a 100 seat majority. No one cares. The title of 'labour leader' is utterly meaningless unless the parliamentary party is able to challenge for a majority and therefore provide a possible alternative government.
I wonder whether the Corbynites/momentum gang actually *get* that. There seems to be a fundamental cognitive disfunction when it comes to understanding how UK democracy works. Owning a militant style take over of a broken party does not get them 1 inch closer to power (unless through some kind of revolution). The only game in town is actually being able to persuade enough people to vote for representatives that can form a majority in the HoC. At least Trots and Stalinists back in the day were wise to this which is why they preached revolution. This latest bunch of cockwombles don't seem to have even worked that out; they just appear to assume that somehow they'll 'achieve' something by having a vain old fool sit on top of the Labour Party for a few years, with an ever declining number of seats. I have to admit it's all abit headscratching.
Edited by Ridgemont on Sunday 28th August 00:22
I was beginning to think that I'd 'lost it' and that these Corbynites had worked out a clever ruse by which they would achieve something meaningful. Ah well, at least it keeps quite a lot of them busy, and with no prospect whatsoever of affecting the running of the country.
Given that he has attracted many new and old Labour supporters back does not mean they are trotsky or deluded the right wing of the Labour party (former Blair and brown cabinet members) are running scared and a rather nasty campaign is the result of that.
If Corbyn has attracted so many new members he may do the same with the broader electorate and if he is Leader he may just become PM.........Cant be any worse than Blair leading this country to WAR and all the associated costs that is with it.
Edited to say remember Blair........popular........man of the people........totally believable and a good strong leader..............
Toaster said:
What seems to be glossed over is that Corbyn is the Leader of the Labour party he is just not standing down he wants the Job and is going for re-election and that my friends is democracy.
Given that he has attracted many new and old Labour supporters back does not mean they are trotsky or deluded the right wing of the Labour party (former Blair and brown cabinet members) are running scared and a rather nasty campaign is the result of that.
If Corbyn has attracted so many new members he may do the same with the broader electorate and if he is Leader he may just become PM.........Cant be any worse than Blair leading this country to WAR and all the associated costs that is with it.
You sir, are either a most amusing spoof account or sadly deluded. Given that he has attracted many new and old Labour supporters back does not mean they are trotsky or deluded the right wing of the Labour party (former Blair and brown cabinet members) are running scared and a rather nasty campaign is the result of that.
If Corbyn has attracted so many new members he may do the same with the broader electorate and if he is Leader he may just become PM.........Cant be any worse than Blair leading this country to WAR and all the associated costs that is with it.
This graph tells you that Corbyn will, in all probability, be an unmitigated disaster in elections.
The chart should be a wake-up call for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the significance of Corbyn’s dismal approval ratings. It illustrates a clear, historical relationship between Labour leader satisfaction ratings and how they performed in general elections. It was produced by University of Southampton politics professor Will Jennings, based on Gallup and Ipsos MORI data.
The chart shows how Labour leaders who have enjoyed positive approval ratings have gone on to win larger vote shares in general elections. Blair was massively popular with the public before leading Labour to a landslide majority in 1997.
At the other end of the scale, Michael Foot (the 1983 data point on that graph). In case you are too young to remember, he too was a radical socialist who was further “left” than the majority of his own MPs. He clocked up appalling approval ratings before being crushed by Thatcher in the 1983 election.
Assuming Corbyn isn’t a remarkable exception from this clear historical trend, he is currently expected to win somewhere around 30% of the vote in 2020. This echoes the findings of extensive research performed by Electoral Calculus earlier this month, which projected Labour would win 28.9% of votes in the next election. This would mean another majority victory for the Conservatives.
The evidence is there for all to see. Corbyn is currently leading Labour to defeat.
Edited by AstonZagato on Sunday 28th August 10:35
AstonZagato said:
You sir, are either a most amusing spoof account or sadly deluded.
This graph tells you that Corbyn will, in all probability, be an unmitigated disaster in elections.
The evidence is there for all to see. Corbyn is currently leading Labour to defeat.
I know I am not deluded my cat only told me so this morning This graph tells you that Corbyn will, in all probability, be an unmitigated disaster in elections.
The evidence is there for all to see. Corbyn is currently leading Labour to defeat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corby...
But looking at the dissatisfaction stats from earlier this year all the leaders have low ratings must be something to do with the job they do.
Brexit wasn't supposed to have been an out result the posters said it would have been a remain one so I'm not sure if I believe another random graph
(Also just to say thanks for the polite response you gave)
A poll from March? Really?
His approval ratings have sunk since then.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-labour-c...
His approval ratings have sunk since then.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-labour-c...
Toaster said:
I know I am not deluded my cat only told me so this morning
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corby...
But looking at the dissatisfaction stats from earlier this year all the leaders have low ratings must be something to do with the job they do.
Brexit wasn't supposed to have been an out result the posters said it would have been a remain one so I'm not sure if I believe another random graph
(Also just to say thanks for the polite response you gave)
Your link is from March, a lot has happened since then, including 170 Labour MPs making a vote of no confidence in your man.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corby...
But looking at the dissatisfaction stats from earlier this year all the leaders have low ratings must be something to do with the job they do.
Brexit wasn't supposed to have been an out result the posters said it would have been a remain one so I'm not sure if I believe another random graph
(Also just to say thanks for the polite response you gave)
If you and your socialist friends continue to put your fingers in your ears and do the "not listening" routine you are in for a rather large shock.
AstonZagato said:
A poll from March? Really?
His approval ratings have sunk since then.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-labour-c...
Indeed they have and the same for the Conservatives as well according to your graphHis approval ratings have sunk since then.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-labour-c...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff