Hold on, Why does everyone assume that there's going to be an inevitable tory victory? Admittedly 95% of the uk population might be living in holes in the ground by the time of the next election, but surely things like getting rid of tax credits when they said they wouldn't is going to be electoral poison.
That was my point, and why I supported "one more heave" (except a better heave than last time). I don't see 71 year old Corbyn, as he will be, helping the possibilities much in 2020.
But I don't think he intends to do that anyway. It's a shame he can't say this without the whole thing becoming a circus, because it might calm lots of silly MPs down.
Not that I'm Corbyn's biggest fan, but in a more rational world, people might be saying "See, we've got more pressing problems than nuclear war, I like the cut of that Corbyn's jib".
Sounds a bit like how Actually Existing Corbyn is, to be honest.
Pleased to hear that unfunny sarcasm is something Lucy gets paid for. I'm all for fair remuneration in the creative industries. But as all I'm getting from him now is childish abuse, time to stop engaging with him now.
No chance. It'll be someone we've never heard of in 2035 who will have the first chance of finding electability. That's the game E10 wants to play. And the anger he and his ilk provoke with their otiose platform is something they will have to live with.
To be honest, I'm not sure this kind of debate does my spirits any good. E10 would rather this thread be an echo chamber to the glories of Corbyn. I'm happy to leave him to it (and I can already hear TT telling me not to let the door hit me on the way out).
E10 Rifle wrote: Sounds a bit like how Actually Existing Corbyn is, to be honest.
Too much baggage, I think, and too old in 2020.
Happy to back him up, in my own inevitable way, for as long as he wants. I think the leaderships there in 2018 or so for anyone who can do a decent "soft left" in the meantime.
The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote: Hold on, Why does everyone assume that there's going to be an inevitable tory victory?
Well, it's because it is a received 'wisdom'. Labour under Corbyn are - or apparently, in this thread, were - unelectable in 2020. You know, unlike other potential Labour leaders who have a Rizla between them and the Tories and yet still have as little or as much chance as Corbyn.
These are like other received wisdoms that we have had this year such as the Tories having to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, UKIP or, even possibly, Labour to run a government. These were predictions being made a week before the election and were shit and yet we know exactly what is going to happen in 5 years' time.
Lucy Waterman wrote: To be honest, I'm not sure this kind of debate does my spirits any good. E10 would rather this thread be an echo chamber to the glories of Corbyn.
Yeah because that's E10 all over, isn't it? The big Corbyn cheerleader who doesn't have any pragmatic sense of the Labour Party at all.
Lucy Waterman wrote: To be honest, I'm not sure this kind of debate does my spirits any good. E10 would rather this thread be an echo chamber to the glories of Corbyn. I'm happy to leave him to it (and I can already hear TT telling me not to let the door hit me on the way out).
Well if all you're going to offer is the silly nonsense that has been more and more on show recently, yeah, don't let the etc. Me, I reckon you have a bit more to you than that.
But I guess you might think your proper efforts are better aimed at your local party meetings and other places where you spend you real-life political time, and here is more for sounding off and letting off steam. Which would make some sense.
Simon Danczuk MP interrupted and shouted down Mr Corbyn at one point, saying "You haven't answered a single question put to you", to which PLP chair John Cryer told him to sit down.
IT's a little hard to get the full quotes on what Corbyn said over the week end but here they are and I am not sure there is much that I disagree with.
I think I would support security measures, policing measures, to deal with these issues, but I think we have to be careful if we act illegally or irrationally; we stand by the rule of international law, we stand by the charter of the United Nations, we stand by our own law. If we start doing random acts without legal backing for them, then we don’t strengthen our position in the world. So I think the answer to your question is that we have to abide by the law.
I’m not saying I would or I wouldn’t. I’m saying its a hypothetical question at this stage. My view is we have to review our foreign policy, review the situation that’s going on in the region and listen to words put forward by Barack Obama on behalf of the United States and Ban Ki-moon on behalf of the United Nations. They made some very wise comments over the weekend. There has to at the end be a political solution to it.
I’m not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think that can often by counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can ... The idea that you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening. That has got to be the priority.
I would not use that language. I would use the language that has been put forward by the thoughtful words of President Obama saying we had to reckon with what happened there.
We have created a situation where some of these forces have grown. Obviously, [I] absolutely blame those that did it. Absolutely, obviously, Isil are totally wrong. Obviously they are some kind of nihilistic movement that are a threat to everybody. Is the way of dealing with them bombing which will include civilian casualties? Bombing does. Or is the way to obviously make the necessary security protective measures in each country, but also to try and get a solution in Syria? We can’t go on with more and more people leaving Syria who are refugees from all wars ...
We’ve got a record, all the Western countries, of interventions, all across the whole piste, and has peace got better as a result of it? Well, I think you know the answer as well as I do to that.
Lest this become another Paris thread – though Corbo's remarks are certainly relevant to this thread - I thought this was a useful, sober guide to the calibrated divisions within the PLP
I got the impression that it was "OUTRAGE!", "FURY!" and "ANGER!" of groups 2 and 3 that made this slightly different. Thus I assume that the unnamed Labour MPs are slightly different from the twat Danczuk.
I posted those quotes in full as they are so at odds with the outrage. If people agree or disagree with them doesn't really matter, it would take a one-eyed fool to think that they are offensive or even particularly politically suicidal. I am not sure of the full extent of what he said at the PLP meeting.
He looks a little scruffy and demonic (not dressed yet). I've advised her to make him tidier and less scary for the Christmas market but if anyone wants one, do let me know.
He looks a little scruffy and demonic (not dressed yet). I've advised her to make him tidier and less scary for the Christmas market but if anyone wants one, do let me know.
Lucy?
Lovely...but I thought it looked more like Michael Rosen?
Comment