D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Corbyn winning by 76%.
On Sky News.
On Sky News.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
SymbiantXenos
Member
Shame Corbyn wasn't asked about Putin.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
my god corbyn just came out better in a debate on kosovo
jesus christ why is someone not throwing in the white towel
jesus christ why is someone not throwing in the white towel
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
the audience is grilling the moderator on Corbyn's behalf
the revolution has begun
the revolution has begun
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
and corbyn wins with 83.4%
SymbiantXenos
Member
Oh well 2025 election should be interesting.
CyclopsRock
Member
Latest cover piece from the Spectator is about Corbyn as leader by James Forsyth - always a good guy to listen to if you want the inside scoop on the Tories. Apparently they're keeping their powder dry, and it's not all gonna drop this month, but rather they'll let Jezza settle in before slowly oozes out their bucket of shit on his head.
He also pointed out the thing I mentioned before, about how ambitious young PLP members aren't going to want to be in his cabinet or even go out to bat for them in the media because they'll get asked "Do you want Corbyn to be Prime Minister?" And it's basically a "have you stopped beating your wife" style question.
He also pointed out the thing I mentioned before, about how ambitious young PLP members aren't going to want to be in his cabinet or even go out to bat for them in the media because they'll get asked "Do you want Corbyn to be Prime Minister?" And it's basically a "have you stopped beating your wife" style question.
anonymous_abc
Member
Sure the tories have little to gain by slinging mud now. Not sure how much harm that will do though, depends on the type of mud I guess.
CyclopsRock
Member
The relevant passage from the piece is...
Not too many details. And the bit I mentioned before...
And the conclusion is...
woof
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
basically. Corbyn's record on Kosovo is dreadful, one of his worst stances and one of the worst stances by any major candidate. If you can't land a blow on him there, you shouldn't be in politics.
Not specifically Corbyn, but I think the SNP could take a major hit on popularity based on next year's Scottish elections.
I'm predicting going for a second referendum is going to be a problematic move.
It's had a pretty nasty fallout because most of the young and the diehards are still wanting another referendum in a couple of years and I've seen a lot of salt and extreme negativity coming from them. I think a lot of the more moderate people have seen the divides the outcome has caused, and would like to avoid bringing it all up again so soon.
The fact the oil money has sort of went down the drain has to be factored in as well.
Maybe forcing fiscal autonomy for a few years would win a lot of people round but that doesn't seem to be the card the SNP want to play.
Someone quote me in a year and bask in how wrong I'll be. Thank goodness I'm not a betting man!
Or perhaps, if Corbyn was actually an opposition leader he'd be given the chance to counter Cameron without the media being able to lie about what he's saying as his actual full speech from PM's Qs would be aired?
Maybe people might, upon hearing an alternative, one with actual convictions, decide they've had enough of bland slimy c**ts.
I find it very ironic that an article prognosticating such a bleak future would in the same breath point out how 'pollsters and bookmakers can get it horribly wrong'...
Maybe people might, upon hearing an alternative, one with actual convictions, decide they've had enough of bland slimy c**ts.
I find it very ironic that an article prognosticating such a bleak future would in the same breath point out how 'pollsters and bookmakers can get it horribly wrong'...
All polling suggests that the SNP will increase their majority mainly at the expense of Labour and the Lib Dems, with the Greens looking likely to increase their representation as well.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yeah maybe, except his actual stance on a lot of things will repel people from him too.
Tbf though even Sky said it's unscientific - it was literally a viewing poll so it doesn't discriminate in any way which, in polling, is a pretty bad thing.
What are you basing that on? As far as I can tell he represents a 'real alternative' which people have been asking for for 20 years.
Jezbollah
Member
Define "people". Are these those members of the Labour party or those who Labour failed to attract the vote for in the last election? The last time this country got swelled up in "change" euphoria was back in 1997. And Labour seems dead set on purging those same people from their own party once Corbyn is finally elected.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm primarily basing it on the fact that in the last 40 years the only time we haven't had a Tory PM was when people voted for Tony Blair. Where have these "people" been? Do they all live in Brighton? And how many are there?
There's a huge difference between a Labour leadership contest - which Corbyn may well storm, though I think it'll be a little tighter than some people think - and winning a General Election. What's gonna happen is Corbyn will win the leadership, and literally whatever happens will be put down to a right-wing media conspiracy, allowing his supporters to carry on saying "we were right, we were right". Meanwhile, the Tories keep cutting. Viva la Corbyn.
People = myself and everyone I know well enough to know their politcal view.
Why would the next 'change euphoria' be for a change to what we already have?
Perhaps Tony was elected because people mistakenly thought he was left-wing (or left leaning at least), even when it became clear he wasn't, he was still preferred to the alternative.
When the effects of the cuts start to become undeniably clear, people might start thinking a left of centre government might not be such a bad idea afterall?
Where does this idea come from that if you're left-wing you must be a hippy? I feel that the immigration crisis has shown the Tory's true colours up a little bit, when it takes pictures of dead children before you show compassion for other humans surely it's not that the left wing are hippies, it's that the right wing are selfish?
He was elected because from the very start of his leadership he deliberately started moving away from the left of the party (removing clause 4 etc) he like everyone else knew that they simply couldn't win an election without middle England.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think that's a dangerous starting position, no? "This is what my friends think."
Yeah, maybe - having passed up James Callaghan, Michael Foot and then Neil Kinnock (twice), they thought "Hey, this guy who just cut Clause IV up on stage at the Labour Party conference - we finally have a left wing candidate we can get behind!" He then proceded to win 3 elections, including one after a disastrously unpopular war in Iraq. He then left and, when presented with Gordon Brown, David "We can't go on like this, I'll cut the deficit" Cameron and Nick "Swingeing Cuts" Clegg, voted for a coalition of the latter two. Maybe all this time, people just wanted someone to enforce wage ceilings.
Well between 2010 and 2015, the electorate shifted away from Labour and towards the Conservatives. How long do we need to wait for this breaking point to occur?
Uhh, I dunno - who has mentioned hippies?
Anyway, this immigration crisis is a bit of a red herring imo. It's a perfect encapsulation, I think, of what makes certain aspects of the left's rhetoric so silly. As Philip Collins once said...
It's not enough to just make an argument. To engage with the fact that only around 7% of the refugees have headed to Europe with the > 90% of others staying in the immediate surroundings (Lebanon etc), and that the UK spends significantly more than every other European country in the supply and maintenence of the refugee accomodation in these places, supplying clean water and food and whatnot, or to acknowledge that this is a solution and response, even if I disagree. It's not enough to tackle the current response and explain why I think an alternative is better. Nope - what's required is the application of emotion. You think your way is better than my way? Well then you must be selfish. Your decisions must be due to a lack of compassion.
Now personally I think we should be doing way, way more to accomodate refugees, and not because of our history in the region but because there are people dying and we can help, so we should. This also isn't a problem that's going away any time soon, so the camps in Lebanon and the surrounding area have an important but limited role in providing a solution. But do you see what I did there? I engaged with the argument and explained why I thought the alternative was better, without calling anyone selfish or lacking in compassion. I didn't use a photo of a dead kid to beat an opponent and I didn't assume that my position was morally superior to the alternative.
You'll also notice that my politicial analysis above is based primarily on past election results based on the choices at the time, not what my mates think.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Labour got 740k more votes under Milliband than Brown, while Cameron only got 630k more votes between 2010 and 2015. That's not a shift away from Labour to the Conservatives at all. A massive problem with electoral system, yes, but that does not indicate that the electorate moved away from Labour to the Tories.
Also Ed was only 200k votes away from Blair's last election. So you know. I think that more proves how shite the Tories were in 2005 than anything to do with Blair.
Isn't that what determines elections? What people think, I don't see how it matters whether they are my friends or not? Sure the group of people I have access to may not be represented as a majority in the population as a whole, but I never said they were.
Yes, because he was (thought to be) left-wing still but not full blown socialist.
The electorate shifted more because of Labour's incompetence and hubris (culminating in illegal wars and massive financial bungling) than anything the Tories have done IMHO.
My brother works in mental health, the job he does is basically the reason why you don't see homeless camps full of the predominantly mentally ill in big cities like in the USA. This is the sort of thing that the cuts are going to lead to, it won't be overnight but when we get there and people start wondering how we turned into a hugely unequal society, again as per America, it's going to be interesting, in a bad way.
You asked if they 'lived in Brighton', you know exactly what you said.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. The Tories are showing every day that they are the party of "I've got mine." Selfishness is not an emotion, it's a course of action. There's no argument to make is there if we are capable of doing at least our fair share on all fronts, which we aren't.
Besides, you appear to be agreeing that the Tory policy is wrong.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Hey! As someone who does live in Brighton, I resent that. Just...ignore the long hair.
CyclopsRock
Member
Lol, I'll reply properly later on but I wasn't talking about hippies - I was talking about the fact that it was the only constituency in the whole of England that actually voted in a party more left wing than Ed's Labour. So when I was asking where all these people clamouring for a break from the norm were, I jokingly answered my own question with "Brighton".
Seriously, don't bother replying. Apologies if I got a bit heated, bad day.
No need to wait a year, all indications are that the SNP will smash it at this years Hollyrood elections, and that support for Independence is higher than it's ever been.
I wouldn't be surprised if Scotland is gone from the Union before 2020.
What was corbyns position on Kosovov?
I think corbyn is a mixed bag. He makes some bang on points about nationalising the energy sector and railways. They are run for profit and the cost never stops going up, imagine how much money would be In people's pockets if gas and electric were state owned?
But his ideas on immigration are a joke. on Channel 4s leader debate he said net migration of 300,000 a year was a small amount and we should take more. He is a fantasist and his love affair with the ira and other terrorists is off putting to.
For every positive about him there are just if not more negatives. The rest of labour are yes men idiots who couldn't lead shit, labour really are screwed for a long time now.
Anything is better than tony Blair and his scum loving blairite followers though.
I think corbyn is a mixed bag. He makes some bang on points about nationalising the energy sector and railways. They are run for profit and the cost never stops going up, imagine how much money would be In people's pockets if gas and electric were state owned?
But his ideas on immigration are a joke. on Channel 4s leader debate he said net migration of 300,000 a year was a small amount and we should take more. He is a fantasist and his love affair with the ira and other terrorists is off putting to.
For every positive about him there are just if not more negatives. The rest of labour are yes men idiots who couldn't lead shit, labour really are screwed for a long time now.
Anything is better than tony Blair and his scum loving blairite followers though.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
I love Corbyn, bloke is amazing. He will make Labour un-voteable for a decade.
Jezbollah
Member
Without a Westminster parliamentary act that is simply not possible.
Well, they could go for the unilateral route. That'd be crazy though.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It does strike me as a bit dishonest to push for a second referendum so soon after the first. I know that is only speculation at this point, but I feel like that result should mean something. You can't just keep putting referendums forward until you get the desired answer.
dapperbandit
Banned
A referendum soon after another can be okay if the context has changed enough. For example, another referendum on electoral reform would be okay now if you look at the differences in party politics since 2011.
But yeah basically pushing for another referendum on independence before 2020 just seems dishonest.
And, even though I want Scotland to stay in the UK, I think that would be a fair reason to run the independence vote again. That is a *massive* change to the fundamental landscape of our country.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
This is fantastic, thank you for this.
Jezbollah
Member
Brilliant.
At some point parliament either has to quash the referendum calls for a couple of decades, or actually forcibly remove the UK claim on Scotland and let them go. If they did slip into a neverendum situation all it would do is tank the British economy.
As for Corbyn being unelectable....that's what was originally said about him in the election race for the Labour leader. It looks now like he might take it. Before the general election it looked like a hung parliament...and then the Tories won it. No one genuinely thought Churchill would lose a late-war election...but he did.
Democracy gives us all sorts of surprises, especially in a system as unfair and anti-democratic as the UK where many of us have no vote at all because of where we live (I still vote, but it amounts to little other than how much my preferred candidate loses by.
As for Corbyn being unelectable....that's what was originally said about him in the election race for the Labour leader. It looks now like he might take it. Before the general election it looked like a hung parliament...and then the Tories won it. No one genuinely thought Churchill would lose a late-war election...but he did.
Democracy gives us all sorts of surprises, especially in a system as unfair and anti-democratic as the UK where many of us have no vote at all because of where we live (I still vote, but it amounts to little other than how much my preferred candidate loses by.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well, that presents an interesting conundrum for nationalists. Do you vote to remain in the EU because that's what you want; or to leave the EU because it will precipitate an independence referendum?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Pretty simple conundrum imo. Scotland leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU anyway (this has been confirmed by the Commission and was talked about quite a bit during the referendum last year). So from a nationalist point of view, simply vote to leave the EU if it will precipitate another indy ref. Scotland would have to rejoin either way.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Much more interesting than that!
The thing that was confirmed by the Commission last year was if Scotland seceded from the UK while the UK was a member state Scotland would have to reapply.
However, if the UK votes to leave the EU and Scotland wants to stay in the EU and leave the UK, then there's a pretty strong argument that Scotland would not have to reapply, as it would be effectively the successor state to an existing member.
Hence the conundrum. A very strong REMAIN vote in Scotland with a strong LEAVE vote in the rest of the UK, sufficient to trigger Brexit, would (a) provide a very strong case for Scotland to be regarded as the successor state but (b) would not provoke an early referendum. On the other hand if a strong LEAVE vote in Scotland helps trigger Brexit an early referendum would be more likely but the moral case for successor-statehood would be undermined.
It is all very fiddly.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Haha, oh I see what you mean. I think I went cross-eyed reading your post!
Would that mean Scotland as a permanent member of the Security Council?
Well they do have all the nukes after all.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Would that mean Scotland as a permanent member of the Security Council?
I'm pretty sure the EU doesn't have a security council.
D'oh! Of course not... God I'm getting stupid in my old age.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Out of interest, mainly as it's an argument I've attempted to make but haven't been eloquent enough to get across, what do people think about this article, about how 1983 was more to do with the Falklands and the SDP split over anything else.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked