You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Labour Leadership - Bald men fighting over a comb?
November 24 2024 2.32am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Labour Leadership - Bald men fighting over a comb?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 14 of 31 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

  

leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 23 Jul 15 8.06pm

Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 7.40pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 7.19pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 7.02pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.46pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.32pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.24pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.22pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.12pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 5.52pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 5.31pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 Jul 2015 5.26pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 5.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 11.15am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Jul 2015 10.15am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 12.01pm

If Labour had won the Scottish seats, no one would have won the election.



You need a maths lesson!

The Conservatives won an electable majority on their own to govern.

Giving Labour another 51 seats would change nothing.

Opps quite right - I misread the number. I thought the difference was a lot closer. 12 seats above the majority, not by 12 seats. Sorry.



You need 325 seats for an overall majority and the Tories have 330. Actually you probably need a few less than that because for example Sinn Fein don't tae their seats.

I was a lot closer. Tories 37% of the vote Labour 31%. Hardly a landside

Considering the fact that if they hadn't existed that most of Ukip's votes would have gone to the Tories....the underlying tale is that this was a massive rejection of Labour at a time where the working class isn't doing that well.


I don't think you have any basis for saying how UKIP voters would have voted. It seems that the one thing they didn't want to do is vote Conservative. The issue for Labour was that they didnt vote for them.

Your second point is undoubtedly true. My point was that there is all to play for if only Labour can elect a leader and re-find its identity as something other than nice-tories

I think you are spot-on, the faliure of Labour at the GE was mainly due to it's attempts to paint itself as tory-lite. The present leadership battle is interesting because there seems to be such a disconnect between the MPs and the wider party members, who a clearly agitating for a move back to the left. I would also add that blairs speech the other day has only increased support for Corbyn.

So these Labour voters did not vote Labour because they were not left wing enough, then voted for a right wing UKIP party?

No.

You just said they lost because they were too Tory!

Please try harder, and also try reading what is actually written. It is a great aid to debate.

A quote from your post above: the faliure of Labour at the GE was mainly due to it's attempts to paint itself as tory-lite.


There is a little more to political ideas than 1.Copy the tories only be a bit nicer about it and 2. A left wing socialist platform.


Why do you think people who usually vote Labour did not at the General Election?


Because even they are waking up to the fact that Labour are a bunch of jokers who have totally trashed this once great country.

Not just Labour to blame, Tories, Liberals, BNP, TUSC, Greens, Monster Raving Looneys, SNP, Sein Fein, the media, various 'rights' organisations, teachers for sure, priests of all descriptions, the FA, Dancing on Ice, meerkats, cyclists, eco-warriors. (Sure there are loads more, but these are the first to come to mind.)

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 23 Jul 15 8.14pm Send a Private Message to fed up eagle Add fed up eagle as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 8.06pm

Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 7.40pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 7.19pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 7.02pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.46pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.32pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.24pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.22pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.12pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 5.52pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 5.31pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 Jul 2015 5.26pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 5.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 11.15am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Jul 2015 10.15am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 12.01pm

If Labour had won the Scottish seats, no one would have won the election.



You need a maths lesson!

The Conservatives won an electable majority on their own to govern.

Giving Labour another 51 seats would change nothing.

Opps quite right - I misread the number. I thought the difference was a lot closer. 12 seats above the majority, not by 12 seats. Sorry.



You need 325 seats for an overall majority and the Tories have 330. Actually you probably need a few less than that because for example Sinn Fein don't tae their seats.

I was a lot closer. Tories 37% of the vote Labour 31%. Hardly a landside

Considering the fact that if they hadn't existed that most of Ukip's votes would have gone to the Tories....the underlying tale is that this was a massive rejection of Labour at a time where the working class isn't doing that well.


I don't think you have any basis for saying how UKIP voters would have voted. It seems that the one thing they didn't want to do is vote Conservative. The issue for Labour was that they didnt vote for them.

Your second point is undoubtedly true. My point was that there is all to play for if only Labour can elect a leader and re-find its identity as something other than nice-tories

I think you are spot-on, the faliure of Labour at the GE was mainly due to it's attempts to paint itself as tory-lite. The present leadership battle is interesting because there seems to be such a disconnect between the MPs and the wider party members, who a clearly agitating for a move back to the left. I would also add that blairs speech the other day has only increased support for Corbyn.

So these Labour voters did not vote Labour because they were not left wing enough, then voted for a right wing UKIP party?

No.

You just said they lost because they were too Tory!

Please try harder, and also try reading what is actually written. It is a great aid to debate.

A quote from your post above: the faliure of Labour at the GE was mainly due to it's attempts to paint itself as tory-lite.


There is a little more to political ideas than 1.Copy the tories only be a bit nicer about it and 2. A left wing socialist platform.


Why do you think people who usually vote Labour did not at the General Election?


Because even they are waking up to the fact that Labour are a bunch of jokers who have totally trashed this once great country.

Not just Labour to blame, Tories, Liberals, BNP, TUSC, Greens, Monster Raving Looneys, SNP, Sein Fein, the media, various 'rights' organisations, teachers for sure, priests of all descriptions, the FA, Dancing on Ice, meerkats, cyclists, eco-warriors. (Sure there are loads more, but these are the first to come to mind.)


Yep, especially those god dam meerkats, GRRRRRRRR!!!!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 24 Jul 15 1.20pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

How does Ken the c*** work out that voting Corbyn for leader might gain some Conservative voters?

I bet Corbyn loved being compared to Nigel Farage too.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
OldFella Flag London 24 Jul 15 2.59pm Send a Private Message to OldFella Add OldFella as a friend

Quote fed up eagle at 23 Jul 2015 7.40pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 7.19pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 7.02pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.46pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.32pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.24pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 6.22pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 23 Jul 2015 6.12pm

Quote ghosteagle at 23 Jul 2015 5.52pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 5.31pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 23 Jul 2015 5.26pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 23 Jul 2015 5.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Jul 2015 11.15am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Jul 2015 10.15am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jul 2015 12.01pm

If Labour had won the Scottish seats, no one would have won the election.



You need a maths lesson!

The Conservatives won an electable majority on their own to govern.

Giving Labour another 51 seats would change nothing.

Opps quite right - I misread the number. I thought the difference was a lot closer. 12 seats above the majority, not by 12 seats. Sorry.



You need 325 seats for an overall majority and the Tories have 330. Actually you probably need a few less than that because for example Sinn Fein don't tae their seats.

I was a lot closer. Tories 37% of the vote Labour 31%. Hardly a landside

Considering the fact that if they hadn't existed that most of Ukip's votes would have gone to the Tories....the underlying tale is that this was a massive rejection of Labour at a time where the working class isn't doing that well.


I don't think you have any basis for saying how UKIP voters would have voted. It seems that the one thing they didn't want to do is vote Conservative. The issue for Labour was that they didnt vote for them.

Your second point is undoubtedly true. My point was that there is all to play for if only Labour can elect a leader and re-find its identity as something other than nice-tories

I think you are spot-on, the faliure of Labour at the GE was mainly due to it's attempts to paint itself as tory-lite. The present leadership battle is interesting because there seems to be such a disconnect between the MPs and the wider party members, who a clearly agitating for a move back to the left. I would also add that blairs speech the other day has only increased support for Corbyn.

So these Labour voters did not vote Labour because they were not left wing enough, then voted for a right wing UKIP party?

No.

You just said they lost because they were too Tory!

Please try harder, and also try reading what is actually written. It is a great aid to debate.

A quote from your post above: the faliure of Labour at the GE was mainly due to it's attempts to paint itself as tory-lite.


There is a little more to political ideas than 1.Copy the tories only be a bit nicer about it and 2. A left wing socialist platform.


Why do you think people who usually vote Labour did not at the General Election?


Because even they are waking up to the fact that Labour are a bunch of jokers who have totally trashed this once great country.

Is the correct answer

Now a choice of Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn or Kendall? Political pygmies. You deficit denying, sore loser lefties must be very proud


 


Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 26 Jul 15 1.23pm

Vegetarian, teetotal, Comrade Corbyn of the Peoples' Republic of Islington on the Andrew Marr show today:

"Marx obviously analysed what was happening in a quite brilliant way. The philosophy around Marx is absolutely fascinating."

"Does it all apply now? Well obviously philosophy applies at all times."

When asked if he was a Marxist:
"That is a very interesting question actually. I haven't thought about that for a long time."

You would have thought someone would know whether they were a Marxist or not - especially a politician.

Edited by leggedstruggle (26 Jul 2015 6.41pm)

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 26 Jul 15 8.17pm

If Comrade Corbyn became premier of the Peoples' Republic of Britain, he would be the first Prime Minister with a beard since Lord Salisbury who left office in 1902. The electorate do not seem to like hirsute leaders - what is lurking behind the whiskers? If he represented 'ackney it might explain it, but he is MP for the toiling middle class masses of next door Islington.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 26 Jul 15 9.02pm

Should the the hirsute King George V therefore come under retrospective suspicion as a possible Comintern "sleeper" agent? You never know what might have been lurking behind the whiskers

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 26 Jul 15 9.40pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote OldFella at 24 Jul 2015 2.59pm

Is the correct answer

Now a choice of Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn or Kendall? Political pygmies. You deficit denying, sore loser lefties must be very proud


Corbyn is hardy much of 'comeback' representative for the far left.

But at least they are getting a 'look in' again with the Labour party...Some kind of representation chance with the leadership.......And to be honest Corbyn represents the grass roots much more than those other three cardboard cut outs.

The leadership should reflect the grass roots and feck the spin doctors and their 'best chance of winning'.....People want conviction politicians who actually believe in things.

Ukip is probably the nearist Tories get to their grass roots.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 27 Jul 15 12.45am Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 26 Jul 2015 1.23pm

Vegetarian, teetotal, Comrade Corbyn of the Peoples' Republic of Islington on the Andrew Marr show today:

"Marx obviously analysed what was happening in a quite brilliant way. The philosophy around Marx is absolutely fascinating."

"Does it all apply now? Well obviously philosophy applies at all times."

When asked if he was a Marxist:
"That is a very interesting question actually. I haven't thought about that for a long time."

You would have thought someone would know whether they were a Marxist or not - especially a politician.

Edited by leggedstruggle (26 Jul 2015 6.41pm)


This post, I believe, is exactly the reason Corbyn may actually do better than people predict. I think the public has fooled itself in to believing it is more puerile, stupid and easily duped than it is, when actually informed and intellectual discussion can still inspire, as JC is proving.

Take that whole Hezbollah/Hamas crap. It was very clear what Corbyn was trying to say, but the press thought they could decontextualise the quote and label him a nutter. In an age of instant public information though, this proved futile: people watched the clip, heard Corbyn's defence and realised it was a storm in a teacup.

This post by Derb...ed struggle perfectly encapsulates that. What does him being a veggie matter? Or the fact that he's teetotal? These are legitimate life choices many take, and using them insultingly is to play in to the hackneyed politics which Corbyn himself represents a departure from. Even the allusion of his Marxist roots is ludicrous: he was asked whether he was a Marxist, considered it and gave an interesting answer suggesting that he is influenced by elements of Marx, who is an incredibly respected social historian and political analyst. Listening to a politician discuss issues like that, personally was such a breathe of fresh air from the typical anti-intellectual soundbite discussion usually served up.

For the record I disagree with Corbyn on a couple of fundamental points, but as someone who believes that worker co-operation in the face of capital and a coherent defence of the welfare state are needed now more than at any stage in post-war Britain, I'm fully supportive of him. I'm not going to type #Jezwecan, because I'm not a prick, but nonetheless, good luck to him.

Edited by serial thriller (27 Jul 2015 12.46am)

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 27 Jul 15 8.33am

Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 12.45am

Quote leggedstruggle at 26 Jul 2015 1.23pm

Vegetarian, teetotal, Comrade Corbyn of the Peoples' Republic of Islington on the Andrew Marr show today:

"Marx obviously analysed what was happening in a quite brilliant way. The philosophy around Marx is absolutely fascinating."

"Does it all apply now? Well obviously philosophy applies at all times."

When asked if he was a Marxist:
"That is a very interesting question actually. I haven't thought about that for a long time."

You would have thought someone would know whether they were a Marxist or not - especially a politician.

Edited by leggedstruggle (26 Jul 2015 6.41pm)


This post, I believe, is exactly the reason Corbyn may actually do better than people predict. I think the public has fooled itself in to believing it is more puerile, stupid and easily duped than it is, when actually informed and intellectual discussion can still inspire, as JC is proving.

Take that whole Hezbollah/Hamas crap. It was very clear what Corbyn was trying to say, but the press thought they could decontextualise the quote and label him a nutter. In an age of instant public information though, this proved futile: people watched the clip, heard Corbyn's defence and realised it was a storm in a teacup.

This post by Derb...ed struggle perfectly encapsulates that. What does him being a veggie matter? Or the fact that he's teetotal? These are legitimate life choices many take, and using them insultingly is to play in to the hackneyed politics which Corbyn himself represents a departure from. Even the allusion of his Marxist roots is ludicrous: he was asked whether he was a Marxist, considered it and gave an interesting answer suggesting that he is influenced by elements of Marx, who is an incredibly respected social historian and political analyst. Listening to a politician discuss issues like that, personally was such a breathe of fresh air from the typical anti-intellectual soundbite discussion usually served up.

For the record I disagree with Corbyn on a couple of fundamental points, but as someone who believes that worker co-operation in the face of capital and a coherent defence of the welfare state are needed now more than at any stage in post-war Britain, I'm fully supportive of him. I'm not going to type #Jezwecan, because I'm not a prick, but nonetheless, good luck to him.

Edited by serial thriller (27 Jul 2015 12.46am)

Don't you mean totally discredited peddler of dangerous economic nonsense.

You think the public will be fooled enough to elect someone who views are the same as those Communist regimes that have visited catastrophic misery on the very people they were supposed to champion.

I salute your restraint in not typing something because you are not a prick!

Edited by leggedstruggle (27 Jul 2015 8.36am)

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 27 Jul 15 9.39am

To say Corbyn is a believer in the same things as say Stalin is similar to saying Derb, sorry legged struggle, has views akin to Mussolini or Hitler...

Trite tripe.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 27 Jul 15 9.48am

Quote legaleagle at 27 Jul 2015 9.39am

To say Corbyn is a believer in the same things as say Stalin is similar to saying Derb, sorry legged struggle, has views akin to Mussolini or Hitler...

Trite tripe.

Stalin believed in the nationalisation of all major industries - so does Corbyn.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 14 of 31 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Labour Leadership - Bald men fighting over a comb?