Politics

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Fairly obvious I'd have thought. Making money for their mates at the expense of the taxpayer. Just like Gideon did previously

 

Same with Royal Mail, chin chin.

[Alex 35083]

On BBC Breakfast this morning it was on about the headline of the Mail which focussed on that 100 year old lady who died after being mugged and the rise in violent crime in general (up 50% in some areas supposedly). It brought to mind Cameron's successful 'Broken Britain' rhetoric but what really struck me is how we've got to the point that the Daily fucking Mail is more effective at attacking a shambolic Tory government than the opposition is.

[Rayvin 5223]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

On BBC Breakfast this morning it was on about the headline of the Mail which focussed on that 100 year old lady who died after being mugged and the rise in violent crime in general (up 50% in some areas supposedly). It brought to mind Cameron's successful 'Broken Britain' rhetoric but what really struck me is how we've got to the point that the Daily fucking Mail is more effective at attacking a shambolic Tory government than the opposition is.

 

Aye but that's just a sweet spot for the Mail. They'd have a police state if they could, so attacking the government over policing cuts is a bread and butter topic for them.

 

This violent crime wave stuff really does seem to be hitting the Tories hard now though. In fact, in a non-Brexit alternate universe it would probably be the main focal point of political discourse right now.

[Alex 35083]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

Aye but that's just a sweet spot for the Mail. They'd have a police state if they could, so attacking the government over policing cuts is a bread and butter topic for them.

 

This violent crime wave stuff really does seem to be hitting the Tories hard now though. In fact, in a non-Brexit alternate universe it would probably be the main focal point of political discourse right now.

I agree with you about the Mail but I barely recall hearing a whimper about it from the opposition which is more the point. Perhaps I've missed it and I'm being unfair but I've got to the stage now where I think Corbyn's a coward who hides behind his 'principles' when it comes to attacking May et al on issues such as this. You know, all that decency bollocks which sounds nice, but in practice is about as much use Anne Frank's drum kit

[Rayvin 5223]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

I agree with you about the Mail but I barely recall hearing a whimper about it from the opposition which is more the point. Perhaps I've missed it and I'm being unfair but I've got to the stage now where I think Corbyn's a coward who hides behind his 'principles' when it comes to attacking May et al on issues such as this. You know, all that decency bollocks which sounds nice, but in practice is about as much use Anne Frank's drum kit

 

I doubt you've missed it, although I daresay that Corbyn has raised policing cuts with the government on many occasions since that's well within his ideological comfort zone. The issue really, as we've identified before, is that he simply can't whip up the media into a frenzy about any of it - so he may as well not be saying a damn thing.

 

I still don't think he's a coward though. Or if he is, I'd like to know how? It's kind of the same thing people say about terrorists - that their devotion to their principles somehow makes them cowardly. They're wrong in what they do, and clearly committing acts of evil, but blowing yourself up for a cause sure as shit isn't cowardly. Corbyn sticking to his guns despite everything can be called stupid, intransigent, and strategically useless to the point of being counter productive... but I don't think it's cowardly.

[Alex 35083]

There's a difference between devotion to your principles and hiding behind purported ones. Unbelievable comparison btw

[ewerk 30611]

19 minutes ago, Alex said:

On BBC Breakfast this morning it was on about the headline of the Mail which focussed on that 100 year old lady who died after being mugged and the rise in violent crime in general (up 50% in some areas supposedly). It brought to mind Cameron's successful 'Broken Britain' rhetoric but what really struck me is how we've got to the point that the Daily fucking Mail is more effective at attacking a shambolic Tory government than the opposition is.

Have they actually attacked the government though?

[Alex 35083]

I don't know. Like the average Mail reader, I've only seen the headline

[Meenzer 15529]

 

[Rayvin 5223]

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

There's a difference between devotion to your principles and hiding behind purported ones. Unbelievable comparison btw

 

Well, I try.

 

How is he hiding behind purported principles though?

[ewerk 30611]

I'm not sure how much killing he got to do in the TA.

[Alex 35083]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

Well, I try.

 

How is he hiding behind purported principles though?

He's spent his career on the backbenches (a bit like Skinner) being so 'principled' he's not actually able to make any real positive impact on the lives of his constituents. By carrying this over into his leadership in a manner which makes him less likely to be elected than were he to 'play the game' a bit he's effectively doing the same thing. Just my opinion, obviously. I'm incredibly frustrated with him, as you can probably tell.

[Alex 35083]

4 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

 

She advertising his services as male escort?

[Meenzer 15529]

Maybe he's resigning so he can go on Love Island.

[Rayvin 5223]

12 minutes ago, Alex said:

He's spent his career on the backbenches (a bit like Skinner) being so 'principled' he's not actually able to make any real positive impact on the lives of his constituents. By carrying this over into his leadership in a manner which makes him less likely to be elected than were he to 'play the game' a bit he's effectively doing the same thing. Just my opinion, obviously. I'm incredibly frustrated with him, as you can probably tell.

 

I am as well, although I'm starting to hit apathy.

 

But he did almost take control of parliament by sticking to his guns. At the time, we thought that was a huge victory. Over time we've reduced the role Corbyn played in that and increased the role the Tories being fucking stupid played in it.

 

But he did come fucking close to sinking them. Closer than Miliband. (Renton incoming)

[Alex 35083]

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I am as well, although I'm starting to hit apathy.

 

But he did almost take control of parliament by sticking to his guns. At the time, we thought that was a huge victory. Over time we've reduced the role Corbyn played in that and increased the role the Tories being fucking stupid played in it.

 

But he did come fucking close to sinking them. Closer than Miliband. (Renton incoming)

Another way of looking at that is he might've won with a few relatively small compromises to those principles

Edited June 7, 2018 by Alex

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Alex said:

Another way of looking at that is he might've won with a few relatively small compromises to those principles

 

I don't know about that tbh, I think the cloud of Brexit made it a certainty for the Tories. But having said that, like what? I'm struggling to think of anything he said that would have lost him votes apart from the stuff about nuclear bombs (which he did compromise on).

[Renton 21626]

12 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I am as well, although I'm starting to hit apathy.

 

But he did almost take control of parliament by sticking to his guns. At the time, we thought that was a huge victory. Over time we've reduced the role Corbyn played in that and increased the role the Tories being fucking stupid played in it.

 

But he did come fucking close to sinking them. Closer than Miliband. (Renton incoming)

 

Aye, I'm here.

 

He lost against Theresa May with a terrible manifesto. He's still fucking losing despite the government being shambolic and the country going down the pan on every metric. Oh aye, and Grenfell. And Windrush.

 

I'm astonished you STILL think he's doing well. 

[Rayvin 5223]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

Aye, I'm here.

 

He lost against Theresa May with a terrible manifesto. He's still fucking losing despite the government being shambolic and the country going down the pan on every metric. Oh aye, and Grenfell. And Windrush.

 

I'm astonished you STILL think he's doing well. 

 

I don't...?

 

I'm just saying that he's not a coward. And that our views on that GE result have changed markedly over time, I think to confirm our biases personally, but with a significant dose of Brexit related fury thrown in.

[Meenzer 15529]

He needed to be a lot stronger on the IRA stuff too, for example. It shouldn't be an issue when there's real problems facing the country, but it's exactly the kind of thing that sticks (and has now stuck, irrevocably) with the middle-England voters you need if you want to actually win an election, and it's unrealistic to believe otherwise. Ditto getting a couple of people on his team who are more friendly to those voters and putting them out there to do the talking for you when necessary. Know your audience, basically.

 

Of course, "if you want to actually win" may be the key phrase here.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

There’s lots of good people in Labour who I think would be romping ahead in the polls if leader. However I’m not sure who the 2 or 3 darlings from the left are that fit that bill. Obviously the way the voting is now done only a left winger is going to replace him.

 

I wish John Ashworth was a Tory

[Alex 35083]

9 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I don't know about that tbh, I think the cloud of Brexit made it a certainty for the Tories. But having said that, like what? I'm struggling to think of anything he said that would have lost him votes apart from the stuff about nuclear bombs (which he did compromise on).

A certainty for the Tories but they couldn't secure a majority? Meenzer already answered the other bit

[Alex 35083]

1 minute ago, Christmas Tree said:

There’s lots of good people in Labour who I think would be romping ahead in the polls if leader. However I’m not sure who the 2 or 3 darlings from the left are that fit that bill. Obviously the way the voting is now done only a left winger is going to replace him.

 

I wish John Ashworth was a Tory

Shush, adults are talking

[Alex 35083]

I'd also add that if he's so principled, why didn't he campaign under the banner of hard Brexit?

[Rayvin 5223]

10 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

He needed to be a lot stronger on the IRA stuff too, for example. It shouldn't be an issue when there's real problems facing the country, but it's exactly the kind of thing that sticks (and has now stuck, irrevocably) with the middle-England voters you need if you want to actually win an election, and it's unrealistic to believe otherwise. Ditto getting a couple of people on his team who are more friendly to those voters and putting them out there to do the talking for you when necessary. Know your audience, basically.

 

Of course, "if you want to actually win" may be the key phrase here.

 

Yeah ok, fair enough. I mean it didn't register remotely with me but I'm too young to remember appreciate that period directly. To me, it just looks like he was on the right side of history with that - but I have an unemotional view of it.

 

I do worry a bit if he actually has it in him to make the changes he wants if he ever did win tbh, so maybe he doesn't want to - but why do all of this, if that was the case? He clearly never expected to be here in the first place.

 

8 minutes ago, Alex said:

A certainty for the Tories but they couldn't secure a majority? Meenzer already answered the other bit

 

Yeah I think so. If we had run with a pro-Remain Labour leader in that GE, the Tories would have their majority. I have no doubt about that. Corbyn's Brexit fudging and changing of the conversation actually worked well for him there.