Jeremy Corbyn

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

whats the point in getting elected doing and saying the same as the party in power causing the problems?

you're mistaking changing to competent political strategy with being a change in what they might do in govt.

Corbyn should be talking about the issues the public care about most (which certainly isn't Trident) *AND* where his view coincides with the general public view (which isn't immigration). That is how he will attract the votes he needs to attract.

But he won't, so it's only going one way. Ho-hum.

Edited January 27, 2016 by eFestivals

[MagicalGlitterBunny]

I think all centre/left non conservative political party leaders should be invited (Green, LibDem, Labour, SNP)

 

 

[Winslow Leach]

38 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

whats the point in getting elected doing and saying the same as the party in power causing the problems? if your going to go down that route we may as well have a one party system dictatorship.......like him or not corbyn offers change....that is whats needed and that is whats wanted. I think many many people are realising now just how much of a mistake allowing the tories in with a majority was, even the tory voters I know seem `put off` by how far cameron and co have been pushing things and planning to treat people.

and at the end of the day, yes cameron got elected with a majority but it wasnt a large one by any means....and they also had a huge amount of people who didnt vote as they didnt see the point....and I didnt blame them.....because given the 2 big parties at the time what was the point!...they both seemed exactly the same!....corbyn has started to reach a lot of those people and fire them up, they finally have the `fiery`  opposition they were looking for.....especially among the young members of the public which should be his biggest goal as they are the future of this country.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Sawdusty surfer]

On 25/01/2016 at 9:44 PM, Martin Ashford said:

It would be a very good thing if Jeremy Corbyn visited the festival and gave a little talk. Proper inspiring and fitting in with the Glasto ethos as well as topical. How many other organisations have openly supported the plight of the Calais refugees? Lets be aving you Jezza!

I can't imagine JC not being invited.  

 

And here's a pic of him with Liz (Pilton site crew, currently running the women's and children's centre right in the middle of the jungle in Calais)  Liz is on the left, no pun intended. 

[grumpyhack]

11 minutes ago, MagicalGlitterBunny said:

I think all centre/left non conservative political party leaders should be invited (Green, LibDem, Labour, SNP)

 

 

Why not the Conservatives too?  Let's see them put on the spot and really challenged by the others.

[arcade fireman]

Corbynites are basically political flat earthers. As Neil has said, they seem unable to grasp that the whole of the country isn't like their little echo chamber. They shake off opinion polls as worthless, despite the fact they've only got things wrong twice in over a generation and even that was overestimating the Labour vote, not underestimating it. This idea of electability being irrelevant is utter madness. The idea that the several hundred thousand Labour Party members' opinions are more important to get on side than those of tens of millions of people nationally. 

It's unfortunate that Labour have a disconnect between people with good policies but who are incapable of convincing the public at large (and many of Corbyn's policies are good) and those who are a bit far to the right of the party but who actually do look and sound credible. That said, even those in the second category like Dan Jarvis I would still much rather have as leader as he'd still be infinitely better than a Tory government. And a far more realistic prospect. 

That said I think Keir Starmer needs to be the man in charge. But not yet - a coup now would probably lead to a split even more damaging than Corbyn's leadership. A couple of years of local election results going as expected will hopefully convince enough people a change is needed, and give enough time for the new leader to face up against an unpopular Osborne. 

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

you mean like the local election up in oldham west where labour actually increased their majority to a higher level then it ever had been under previous regimes?

.... with a solid 'Blairite' candidate with a strong local profile, in one of the most solid Labour seats, and where Cporbyn was told to (and did) stay away?

You think that was a Corbyn victory?

It's a solid Labour seat, and there's a seat next door that's much the same, that also had a byelection a few months after the last change of leader ... and guess what? Miliband performed better than Corbyn did.

It's great that Oldham wasn't the disaster than many (including Corbyn side-kicks) had thought it might be, but to claim that as an endorsement of Corbyn is massively over-stating things.

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

The anti corbyn `mob` seem `unable` to grasp the fact that just because the fucking daily mail claims corbyn is universally detested by the public doesnt make it so!  i

cos no one is as clever as those who agree with every jot that you say, and must be being conned by the Daily Mail?

I think you need to wake up to yourself, and to how the mood has changed even amongst many of those within Labour who voted for Corbyn as leader.

If you care to look outside of your self-confirming bubble, you'll see plenty of Labour Party members now admitting they feel they made a big mistake voting for Corbyn. Even most of his most vocal supporters are disappointed with him, as he's not focused on the issues they hoped he would.

If there was another leadership vote today with the same people, Corbyn might still win, but I guarantee his support would be reduced ... which is the opposite to how it normally goes for a new leader, I'll point out. When there's no new-leader bounce in the most favourable conditions, it gets mighty hard to think a bounce will come along later.

 

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

why is it? if the public really had such an issue with the leader of the party they wouldnt vote for the party! 

Most people vote for the same party they voted for last time. That's true for the supporters of all parties.

So iut's hardly a huge surprise to see that people in a strong Labour seat voted Labour.

It's not the strong Labour seats Corbyn needs to win, it's the marginals. How do you think he might be doing with turning 2015 tory voters into Labour voters?

The evidence says "dreadfully", both from local polling and from local canvassing.

 

Quote

you dont vote for a party you dont like the direction of....at local or national level...simple logic!

In which case, given that an unexpectedly large number voted Tory last May, it means the electorate likes the direction the tories are going in - which is a bit inconvenient when you wrote that line in support of Corbyn.

 

11 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

he fact is that was touted as the first real test of corbyns leadership affecting labour and it was also touted by many naysayers as the start of there downfall.....that didnt happen did it?

he performed worse than losing-leader Miliband did in a very similar byelection just a few months into the new leadership in the seat just next door.

So there's plenty to suggest Coirbyn is a negative impact, and little to suggest anything positive. The only 'positive' is that the vote mostly held up, but there's nothing to suggest it held up specifically because of Corbyn.

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by eFestivals

[___S_o_m_a__]

14 hours ago, grumpyhack said:

Why not the Conservatives too?  Let's see them put on the spot and really challenged by the others.

We've already had one large leak of effluent at Glastonbury. Do we really need any more?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, ___S_o_m_a__ said:

We've already had one large leak of effluent at Glastonbury. Do we really need any more?

I though the poo and a tory were often contained in the same cubicle at Glasto?

(soz, that's a bit sick/insensitive ... but I don't care )

 

 

 

[russycarps]

16 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

I know pleanty of people who detested the tories yet still didnt vote labour....a few who had even voted labour for years

And it's because of cretinous turds like these people that we have a tory government.

Presumably these dimwits who "detest the tories" think a cameron government is preferable to a milliband government. 

What astute thinking.

 

 

[eFestivals]

52 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Presumably these dimwits who "detest the tories" think a cameron government is preferable to a milliband government.

it's certain that they did prefer Cameron to Miliband. The votes don't lie.

Are those people who clearly don't have a problem with right wing policies likely to vote for a more-left-wing Labour in huge numbers? Unlikely.

Are those people who didn't think Miliband was PM material likely to think that Corbyn is more PM material? Unlikely.

Are those people who don't have a problem voting in support of a pro-Trident party likely to switch their vote to a no-Trident option? Unlikely.

Are those people who want less immigration and not more likely to vote for the same (or more) immigration of Corbyn? Unlikely.

Etc, etc, etc. Nothing suggests much of a reason why any of those people who voted happily for Dave to avoid a Labour govt will suddenly think Corbyn is the better option.

He's talking about stuff they mostly don't care about, and giving a version the opposite to what they mostly think.

It's dreadfully sad that that's where things are, but it's more dreadfully sad that none of that enters some people's thoughts when they claim to want a change from the tories.

Edited January 28, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

your thinking that they voted for dave to `avoid` a labour government is flawed. many voted tory as there simply wasn't any viable opposition to choose from....why was that? because labour simply were not offering the kind of change that would have marked them out as anything different from the tories.

You think that, really?

People don't happily vote right wing because they want something more left wing. To think that they do is insane.

Edited January 28, 2016 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

15 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

your thinking that they voted for dave to `avoid` a labour government is flawed. many voted tory as there simply wasn't any viable opposition to choose from....why was that? because labour simply were not offering the kind of change that would have marked them out as anything different from the tories. You want to know why millipede lost the election it was that....weak opposition, no backbone, scared to separate themselves from or criticize tory policy `to` much...and in the end they lost their own identity as a result.....Noone likes(or votes for) a coward!

and your still harping on about how much corbyn talks about stuff people dont care about...tell you what he was making good points about large scale tax avoidance and chummy chummy tories letting their corperate friends off the hook yesterday.....I care a hell of a lot about that issue as so many other people......just because the media talks about corbyns association with cnd etc and the trident debate does not mean corbyn himself is talking of nothing but that.  Have you watched a pmqs as of late? cant recall trident actually being mentioned! you seem more obsessed with it then anything else pal!  once again making up complete and utter bollocks to further your argument not about me this time but about how corbyn apparently spends his time.
 

so your mates who detest the torys but actually voted for the torys did so because miliband's opposition was too weak, even though they are left-leaning and disagreed with cameron? 

They brought about a tory government to somehow punish miliband?

Wow.....

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

You want to know why millipede lost the election it was that....weak opposition, no backbone, scared to separate themselves from or criticize tory policy `to` much...and in the end they lost their own identity as a result.....Noone likes(or votes for) a coward!

There's been lots of different reports done by all kinds of different people both within Labour and from outside of Labour for whyy they lost.

And not a single one has pointed to anything of that for why Labour lost.

And Labour canvassers from back in May don't report that as being any sort of factor at all.

So i'd love to know how you've reached that conclusion.....?

(making it up cos it suits you to believe it isn't anything worth telling me, btw).

 

6 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

and your still harping on about how much corbyn talks about stuff people dont care about...tell you what he was making good points about large scale tax avoidance and chummy chummy tories letting their corperate friends off the hook yesterday.....

It's the first time in 5 months as leader he's made any impact at all on the tories. Do we have to wait another 5 moths for the next time?

And while he did manage to make an impact yesterday, most commentators think it's more because Dave was complacent cos Corbyn has been consistently crap up till now rather than because Corbyn was particularly good.

Those commentators also think Corbyn missed and easy open-goal. I tend to agree with them, because Dave had his diversionary plan in hand, and today the row is about Dave's choice of words about migrants, and not anything about Google's taxes.

It's also worth remembering that Miliband also made an impact - and more regularly and harder-hitting than Corbyn is managing.

 

6 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

I care a hell of a lot about that issue as so many other people......just because the media talks about corbyns association with cnd etc and the trident debate does not mean corbyn himself is talking of nothing but that. 

But he is, pretty much.

He's made the Trident issue the most important issue to Labour at the moment. So much so he's had to carry out the fastest reshuffle in UK party leadership history to try and shore-up his position within his own party.... and all for an issue where he has absolutely no hope of changing the decision that will be made about Trident (and he even accepts the pro-Trident position will win!!).

Why split your own party over an issue you know you'll lose? Leadership doesn't get more crap than that.

And more than just that, he's announced a 'defence policy review' and yet made everything about that review completely pointless.... cos he's said no matter what the review concludes, his position if PM is as a unilateralist because he's said he won't press the button.

So he might as well forget the review and declare Labour as unilateralist, because any other party position just isn't credible with him as the "I won't press the button" leader.

 

6 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

Have you watched a pmqs as of late? cant recall trident actually being mentioned!

True.

But Jezza brings it up each and every time that *HE* gets to dictate where the convo goes.

But he doesn't mention housing, the NHS, wages, jobs, or anything else of the *real* issues.

 

6 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

you seem more obsessed with it then anything else pal!  once again making up complete and utter bollocks to further your argument not about me this time but about how corbyn apparently spends his time.

Did you miss the fastest reshuffle in history or something? Were you on holiday?

FFS.

 

 

[Neon_Ballroom]

53 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

Have you watched a pmqs as of late? cant recall trident actually being mentioned!
 

Trident was actually mentioned in PMQs last week, when Cameron kept raising Corbyn's suggestion of building four new Trident submarines but without the nuclear warheads...

[eFestivals]

He's most in control of his own party. His focus there has been trident.

When talked in pmqs about housing it was in the middle of his reshuffle - about trident. 

And his words about housing? Lost behind trident.

Etc, etc, etc.

He has the opportunities to make a noise about other things, but prefers to focus on trident.

A policy where he admits he'll lose, and so prefers to be seen as that loser.

I'm paying attention. The problem is where jezza's attention is and not mine.

[DeanoL]

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And more than just that, he's announced a 'defence policy review' and yet made everything about that review completely pointless.... cos he's said no matter what the review concludes, his position if PM is as a unilateralist because he's said he won't press the button.

Do you think for a minute our military actually leave 'the button' in the hands of the PM? The whole thing is a farcical 'what if?' scenario.

I think Corbyn has had a very significant impact on things but it's hard to quantify and point at. Trident is the obvious one - he knows he won't win the debate but thinks the debate is well worth having. And that debate is now happening in the media, on radio phone-ins, and in the press. That wouldn't have happened with a leader that was backing Trident.

I think to a lesser extent it's happened elsewhere too. The Overton window is moving back a little, things are being confronted that haven't been before... I'm personally not sure the media and government u-turn on Syrian refugees would have happened without Corbyn...

None of which means he can win an election, of course. But then, until Labour find themselves a candidate who can, I would rather have this than some Tory-lite friendly face that pushes the debate even further to the right.

[budvar]

My mate organised for Nick Clegg to appear at the Speakers' Forum (can't remember the exact year but around 2008/09 i.e. ahead of the coalition). Drew a fairly sizeable crowd (at least by SF standards) but my main memory is the previous speaker being a performance poet who used the opportunity to deliver a rant about something a Lib Dem council had done to piss him off (he got quite worked up, bless him).

I'd be interested to see how Corbyn would get on; he used to be my MP and I honestly feel he really didn't expect to end up as leader when he threw his hat into the ring.

[Jacko45]

Mixing Politics with a Festival.

Not for me

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Do you think for a minute our military actually leave 'the button' in the hands of the PM? The whole thing is a farcical 'what if?' scenario.

Do you think the military have the authority to fire after Jezza as PM has told them not to?

What's farcical is a 'review' where the outcome is pre-decided by Jezza.

He says he wants a debate, while making sure the debate is pointless.

Are lies like these by Jezza part of his much-admired integrity, or are lies like these part of the new politics?

Or is just that Jezza is self-interested slimeball like other politicians?

 

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

I think Corbyn has had a very significant impact on things but it's hard to quantify and point at.

Such a "very significant impact" that none of it can be identified?

Yep, I guess you're right.

 

 

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Trident is the obvious one - he knows he won't win the debate but thinks the debate is well worth having.

yeah, having the debates you know you'll lose is so much more important than everything else.

 

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

And that debate is now happening in the media, on radio phone-ins, and in the press. That wouldn't have happened with a leader that was backing Trident.

Is anything changing via those 'debates' apart from the low opinions of Jezza getting even lower - via stuff like his moronic "trident without the nukes to keep the unions in jobs"?

I'm hearing the debate too. Jezza is losing friends, not gaining them.

Just as the polls also show.

 

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

None of which means he can win an election, of course. But then, until Labour find themselves a candidate who can, I would rather have this than some Tory-lite friendly face that pushes the debate even further to the right.

Then you're a fool.

Jezza is destroying Labour forever, not moving it to a more positive place for victory.

"The new politics" being brought in Jezza is one of a fragmented opposition and the tories ruling forever. It's about me-me-me like any Thatcherite and not about what Labour can do for people.

 

 

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, Jacko45 said:

Mixing Politics with a Festival.

Not for me

Then which festival are you going to instead? You can't be going to Glastonbury.

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

Cause Labour were in such good shape before.... 

however bad it was before, it's worse now.

But let's just pretend that part isn't there, eh?

 

 

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

Maybe things need to get worse before they can even start to get better. At the last election, the choice was going down the wrong path quickly (Tory),  or going down the wrong path on a slightly more circuitous route (labour)

yeah, cos it would have been just the same to have had fewer cuts and more investment, with the most-leftwing programme for 20+ years.

It wasn't perfect, but just look what people like you caused to happen by not voting Labour. It's *you* that might as well be the tory, not those you condemn who understand what solidarity is.

Solidarity isn't all about me-me-me.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by eFestivals