David Cameron just said he watches Glasto at home by a warm fire

[cazzatron]

14 minutes ago, barcelonista1899 said:

The prospect of being in a farm is too much temptation for him...

Best comment. 

[Festival Liam]

I am far from a "Cameron supporter", but does anyone else kind of hope he stays in charge for fear of what will replace him when his party finally politically decapitate him? Pick your poison, Cameron, Osborne, May or Johnson? I'd go Cameron :/. Ugh.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Festival Liam

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Festival Liam said:

I am far from a "Cameron supporter", but does anyone else kind of hope he stays in charge for fear of what will replace him when his party finally politically decapitate him? Pick your poison, Cameron, Osborne, May or Johnson? I'd go Cameron :/. Ugh.

Not really.  Cameron has a Blair like teflon quality.  The sooner Cameron is gone, the sooner the Tories are gone.

Good riddance.

[Festival Liam]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

Not really.  Cameron has a Blair like teflon quality.  The sooner Cameron is gone, the sooner the Tories are gone.

Good riddance.

Well I was talking until the next election. We know Cameron is going at the next election, so at some point we get one of those three to replace him. I would rather he stuck around longer, to save us from that. Although I see your point, they might become unelectable under one of them. Although given the way people lap up Boris' shit, maybe not. 

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, Festival Liam said:

Well I was talking until the next election. We know Cameron is going at the next election, so at some point we get one of those three to replace him. I would rather he stuck around longer, to save us from that. Although I see your point, they might become unelectable under one of them. Although given the way people lap up Boris' shit, maybe not. 

They may well still win the next election under him. As you can tell by the Corbyn threads on here, many people of have traditionally opposed the Tories don't seem to want to get behind the most left wing labour leader since...a long time.  Kinnock?  Foot? Earlier? I'm too young to know.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Cameron going may also sway the country a wee bit more in the direction of Brexit.

[weirdforces]

18 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Cameron going may also sway the country a wee bit more in the direction of Brexit.

I think that's what Johnson might be going for. With Cameron's unpopularity, he can push the Brexit agenda and make people distrust his motives regarding staying in.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

 

I wonder if he thought to say this about Glastonbury himself or was it a PR aides wet dream come true when he decided to run with it?

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

They may well still win the next election under him. As you can tell by the Corbyn threads on here, many people of have traditionally opposed the Tories don't seem to want to get behind the most left wing labour leader since...a long time.  Kinnock?  Foot? Earlier? I'm too young to know.

No Stu. ... you're talking complete and utter bollocks.

It's that Corbyn isn't getting behind the people he's meant to represent, and who he needs to get behind to get the votes to get elected.

According to those same Corbyn supporters, this is the worst tory govt in history.... and yet Corbyn hasn't spent much of his time taking on the policies of 'the worst tory govt in history', he's instead decided that the normal tory policy of Trident is the thing which needs most of his attention.

Not only that, he's making little attempt to get his message across to anyone who isn't already on his side.

It's a strategy that looks very likely to lead to failure and so lead to the continuation of 'the worst tory govt in history'.

I want to see that govt gone, I don't want a party that considers principled defeat and achieving nothing as a greater victory than changing people's lives for the better.

By all normal measures Corbyn is the worst political leader in UK history, and he has none of the pointers which says he might be on the way to victory. I'd rather that changed, and if Corbyn won't change it himself then it's Corbyn who will have to be changed.

[arcade fireman]

This Tory government is in far more disarray than it ever was during the last Parliament. However even unelectable Miliband was up to 14 points ahead in the polls. If Labour lose seats in the council elections despite the perfect storm being created for the Tories, this will be further evidence something is seriously wrong. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by arcade fireman

[Mr.Tease]

56 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No Stu. ... you're talking complete and utter bollocks.

It's that Corbyn isn't getting behind the people he's meant to represent, and who he needs to get behind to get the votes to get elected.

According to those same Corbyn supporters, this is the worst tory govt in history.... and yet Corbyn hasn't spent much of his time taking on the policies of 'the worst tory govt in history', he's instead decided that the normal tory policy of Trident is the thing which needs most of his attention.

Not only that, he's making little attempt to get his message across to anyone who isn't already on his side.

It's a strategy that looks very likely to lead to failure and so lead to the continuation of 'the worst tory govt in history'.

I want to see that govt gone, I don't want a party that considers principled defeat and achieving nothing as a greater victory than changing people's lives for the better.

By all normal measures Corbyn is the worst political leader in UK history, and he has none of the pointers which says he might be on the way to victory. I'd rather that changed, and if Corbyn won't change it himself then it's Corbyn who will have to be changed.

You're the one who seems obsessed by trident- I honestly don't know why you keep saying Corbyn focuses more on that that any other issue- it's simply not true. The main focus these past few months has been Tory welfare policies- campaigning against tax credit cuts, campaigning against disability cuts, etc, which is precisely why people like me voted for him.

Its very easy to say put aside principles for practicality (and I take umbrage with that because it assumes there are fantastic 'practical' Labour leaders in waiting- if so please name them) if you're not one of the people being attacked or demonised. e.g. its easy to say take a tougher line on immigration if you're not an immigrant or son/daughter of an immigrant, its easy to say take a tougher line on welfare if you're not disabled or reliant on welfare- who are you willing to sell out and turn on in order to boost your chances of getting elected? Who is expendable? Do you have a bottom line?

Latest polling shows Corbyn is now ahead of Cameron in terms of approval (a combination of him slowly improving and cameron plummeting)- sure I'd love to see him doing better, but I'm giving him at least another year or two. I always thought if he's going to win people round its going to be a slow burn process.

[arcade fireman]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

You're the one who seems obsessed by trident- I honestly don't know why you keep saying Corbyn focuses more on that that any other issue- it's simply not true. The main focus these past few months has been Tory welfare policies- campaigning against tax credit cuts, campaigning against disability cuts, etc, which is precisely why people like me voted for him.

Its very easy to say put aside principles for practicality (and I take umbrage with that because it assumes there are fantastic 'practical' Labour leaders in waiting- if so please name them) if you're not one of the people being attacked or demonised. e.g. its easy to say take a tougher line on immigration if you're not an immigrant or son/daughter of an immigrant, its easy to say take a tougher line on welfare if you're not disabled or reliant on welfare- who are you willing to sell out and turn on in order to boost your chances of getting elected? Who is expendable? Do you have a bottom line?

Latest polling shows Corbyn is now ahead of Cameron in terms of approval (a combination of him slowly improving and cameron plummeting)- sure I'd love to see him doing better, but I'm giving him at least another year or two. I always thought if he's going to win people round its going to be a slow burn process.

I massively disagreed with his support of the war in Syria, he's definitely a little too right wing for my tastes - but Dan Jarvis would be pretty likely to become PM if he became Labour leader. Keir Starmer would be another option who comes across as a little more to the left of Jarvis who could hold his own against any of the Tories. The point is that either would be massively preferable to having any Tory in charge - and I also think given current events in Labour they would be particularly wary of being seen as another Blair. 

I agree another year is reasonable, but only because changing the leader this early would lead to more splits and problems within the Labour party. Ultimately every single politician has to make compromises, if by some miracle Corbyn became PM he would have to as well. Of course he may make fewer of these compromises. 

Miliband was doing far, far better than Corbyn at this stage - and he was someone we always suspected was going to be unelectable. The Tories weren't in anything like the disarray they're in now and it had been less than a year since Labour had been voted out. Corbyn should be doing a hell of a lot better - most forecasts indicate he will lose hundreds of council seats compared to 2012 which is very poor going. Maybe the winds will change a little between now and early May when the elections are held due to this Panama crisis, but it won't be Corbyn's doing. 

 

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

You're the one who seems obsessed by trident- I honestly don't know why you keep saying Corbyn focuses more on that that any other issue- it's simply not true.

and yet he carried out the fastest reshuffle in UK political history to get a anti-trident team.

 

Quote

The main focus these past few months has been Tory welfare policies- campaigning against tax credit cuts, campaigning against disability cuts, etc, which is precisely why people like me voted for him.

and yet the best opposition to those things didn't come from Corbyn or Labour. The over-turning of those things were not Labour victories.

When tories are more effective opposition to tory policies, shouldn't questions be asked about how effective Labour are being?

 

Quote

Its very easy to say put aside principles for practicality (and I take umbrage with that because it assumes there are fantastic 'practical' Labour leaders in waiting- if so please name them)

I've no particular problem with Corbyn, apart from the fact he's ineffective. If he can effectively sell those policies - and I'm certain someone could - then I'd have no issue.

Putting aside the internal support for Corbyn for a moment and presuming an alternative might have the same policies, do you really believe that no one could be more effective as leader than Corbyn? Really?

In more realistic terms, it's probably going to require a change of leader and policies

Jezza came from nowhere, and wasn't even picked to stand because he was the best on the left but because "it's my turn". Is there no person within the 240-ish MPs who could do a better job? Really?

 

Quote

 if you're not one of the people being attacked or demonised. e.g. its easy to say take a tougher line on immigration if you're not an immigrant or son/daughter of an immigrant, its easy to say take a tougher line on welfare if you're not disabled or reliant on welfare- who are you willing to sell out and turn on in order to boost your chances of getting elected? Who is expendable? Do you have a bottom line?

Who's saying that's what the alternative is? Only those using false flags to protect Corbyn from rightful and just criticism.

 

Quote

Latest polling shows Corbyn is now ahead of Cameron in terms of approval (a combination of him slowly improving and cameron plummeting)- sure I'd love to see him doing better, but I'm giving him at least another year or two. I always thought if he's going to win people round its going to be a slow burn process.

And is that because Corbyn has been so very effective in the last 3 or 4 weeks, and has suddenly impacted into new people's conciousness? Or might it because the tories are fucking things up all by themselves and in a (basically) 2 party system those people have nowhere else to go? "My shit leader isn't as shit as your shit leader" isn't a strategy to cheer (and as an aside, it also means any policy progressions get reversed by the next govt because 'the people' never bought them in the first place).

My worry with the "give him another year or two" idea is that it's mostly said by those who are looking to hide Corbyn's faults today, which has me thinking they'll have the same sense of denial in another year or two.

I don't actually have an issue with him having another year or two if people will really be prepared to give him then if things are the same ... but it doesn't mean he should get a free pass in the meantime. We can all see that he could be doing so very much better so why is it wrong to speak out in saying he needs to do that, it urge it to happen?

Edited April 9, 2016 by eFestivals

[Mr.Tease]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and yet he carried out the fastest reshuffle in UK political history to get a anti-trident team.

 

and yet the best opposition to those things didn't come from Corbyn or Labour. The over-turning of those things were not Labour victories.

When tories are more effective opposition to tory policies, shouldn't questions be asked about how effective Labour are being?

 

I've no particular problem with Corbyn, apart from the fact he's ineffective. If he can effectively sell those policies - and I'm certain someone could - then I'd have no issue.

Putting aside the internal support for Corbyn for a moment and presuming an alternative might have the same policies, do you really believe that no one could be more effective as leader than Corbyn? Really?

In more realistic terms, it's probably going to require a change of leader and policies

Jezza came from nowhere, and wasn't even picked to stand because he was the best on the left but because "it's my turn". Is there no person within the 240-ish MPs who could do a better job? Really?

 

Who's saying that's what the alternative is? Only those using false flags to protect Corbyn from rightful and just criticism.

 

And is that because Corbyn has been so very effective in the last 3 or 4 weeks, and has suddenly impacted into new people's conciousness? Or might it because the tories are fucking things up all by themselves and in a (basically) 2 party system those people have nowhere else to go? "My shit leader isn't as shit as your shit leader" isn't a strategy to cheer (and as an aside, it also means any policy progressions get reversed by the next govt because 'the people' never bought them in the first place).

My worry with the "give him another year or two" idea is that it's mostly said by those who are looking to hide Corbyn's faults today, which has me thinking they'll have the same sense of denial in another year or two.

I don't actually have an issue with him having another year or two if people will really be prepared to give him then if things are the same ... but it doesn't mean he should get a free pass in the meantime. We can all see that he could be doing so very much better so why is it wrong to speak out in saying he needs to do that, it urge it to happen?

The reshuffle wasn't so much about trident, but about getting rid of the shadow ministers who kept running to the press in tears and blasting Corbyn. Has there been any of that stuff since since the re-shuffle? No. Job done.

I'd love for Corbyn to be more effective, but the choice we were given in the leadership election was: Andy Burnham, Liz Kendal, Yvette Cooper and Jeremy Corbyn. Largely non-entities, but one of which I agreed with. Do I think any of those three would be more effective than Corbyn? Honestly no I don't.

I can understand going down the Blaire route if there's actually a credible Blair candidate on offer, but there wasn't. As I said at the time, the party needs a talent infusion, and it needs to be opened up- we've essentially been stuck with a party made up of Blair/Brown fanboys and former policy wonks, who haven't come up with any fresh new policies in years.

[danbailey80]

All very well wishing for Camerons resignation but care to consider the likely replacement. I dislike him immensely, but as a teacher the idea of Gove or worse being in charge makes me shiver. 

[arcade fireman]

No chance Cameron will resign yet. I think it's good to keep the pressure on, this gives the illusion of the crisis being bigger than it is. But Cameron's biggest error was tactical rather than anything else - sure what he did was morally wrong but it's not illegal - and most of the blame can be attached to his father. Cameron should have stated this clearly from the outset and there would've been not that much said of it.

But he took four to five statements to get the truth out - for someone who has become leader of our country almost purely on virtue of being an excellent PR man and having a squeaky clean image, that's not a good move at all. Had this been Boris Johnson, it wouldn't have got anything like the attention as most people would expect this from him. 

[Amy Lawn]

Your average pop picker who voted Tory under Cameron will vote Tory under Bozzy or Ozzy, both of whom are unspeakably evil. I don't have as low an opinion of Corbyn as Neil does, but I do agree that the Labour party as a whole really need to stop fucking around and shoot for the open goal the Tories are giving them. Labour have a leader who was initially very popular, and a Tory party in crisis, but they've shown very little interest in exploiting those advantages. It's extremely frustrating.

[eFestivals]

22 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

The reshuffle wasn't so much about trident, but about getting rid of the shadow ministers who kept running to the press in tears and blasting Corbyn. Has there been any of that stuff since since the re-shuffle? No. Job done.

Maria Eagle was running to the press to bad-mouth Corbyn? You'll have to show me those press articles she featured in.

And this, you see, is where porkies come into play to try and protect Corbyn from the real world with fantasies. This is the new better politics, is it?

Eagle did criticise Corbyn's "I won't push the button" statement, because a statement like that from the leader pre-decides both party policy and (if in govt) govt policy. There's nothing democratic or better for democracy from a diktat, and a national leader that won't accept and act on the will of parliament as part of the democratic process isn't fit to be that national leader within a democratic process.

But let's forget about it being Corbyn who is the one not following party policy and party discipline to pretend that the democrats are the ones undermining Labour.

[Mr.Tease]

47 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Maria Eagle was running to the press to bad-mouth Corbyn? You'll have to show me those press articles she featured in.

And this, you see, is where porkies come into play to try and protect Corbyn from the real world with fantasies. This is the new better politics, is it?

Eagle did criticise Corbyn's "I won't push the button" statement, because a statement like that from the leader pre-decides both party policy and (if in govt) govt policy. There's nothing democratic or better for democracy from a diktat, and a national leader that won't accept and act on the will of parliament as part of the democratic process isn't fit to be that national leader within a democratic process.

But let's forget about it being Corbyn who is the one not following party policy and party discipline to pretend that the democrats are the ones undermining Labour.

The main point of the reshuffle was two fold- it was to get rid of the shadow ministers who were running crying to the press, that is is why since the re-shuffle we haven't had any more of those stories. Maria Eagle mustn't have being doing that off the record which is why she got moved to culture rather than sacked.

While they were at it the decided to sort out the disastrous communications, whereby they had shadow ministers openly disagreeing with the leader, and being in charge off the shadow ministries of the issues they were complaining about. You know that's unworkable, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by pretending you don't

I'm never going to buy into your 'jeremy opposes official labour policy' because we both know you're playing games- do you really think that when a new leader takes over they should just speak out in favour of all the stuff they inherited from the previous leadership and disagreed with and shelve their own views? Completely unworkable.

Criticise Corbyn all you want, but using the re-shuffle against him isn't very fair- it needed to happen and wasn't due to an obsession with Trident- be honest things aren't as bad since the re-shuffle.

 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Maria Eagle mustn't have being doing that off the record which is why she got moved to culture rather than sacked.

yep, and it's of course nothing about paranoia and Trotskyist tendencies, and people making up their own scenarios to justify anything Corbyn does.

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, and it's of course nothing about paranoia and Trotskyist tendencies, and people making up their own scenarios to justify anything Corbyn does.

Paranoid about what? There were shadow ministers texting papers during meetings of the shadow ministers, there were shadow ministers running crying to the press, and that did stop after the re-shuffle.  Are you really denying that happened?

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I'm never going to buy into your 'jeremy opposes official labour policy' because we both know you're playing games

can you tell me what the official Labour policy is?

It's not a game. It's a fact.

 

13 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

do you really think that when a new leader takes over they should just speak out in favour of all the stuff they inherited from the previous leadership and disagreed with and shelve their own views? Completely unworkable.

If that was all that had happened you'd be on solid ground. But that's not all that's happened, is it?

Is a leader in a democracy is supposed to follow the democratic will of the people's representatives, or not?

Or does that leader lead by doing whatever he wants and take fuck all notice of what the people say...?

If it were the 2nd of those, might that impact onto the numbers of people who might support that leader, or do you think the point of voting isn't about democratic representation?

[Mr.Tease]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

can you tell me what the official Labour policy is?

It's not a game. It's a fact.

 

If that was all that had happened you'd be on solid ground. But that's not all that's happened, is it?

Is a leader in a democracy is supposed to follow the democratic will of the people's representatives, or not?

Or does that leader lead by doing whatever he wants and take fuck all notice of what the people say...?

If it were the 2nd of those, might that impact onto the numbers of people who might support that leader, or do you think the point of voting isn't about democratic representation?

Where do progressive politics come into it? Should Martin Luther King not have pushed for civil rights because thats not what most people wanted at the time? Where would we be if no one had ever challenged the status quo and simply represented the majority held beliefs of the time?

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Where do progressive politics come into it? Should Martin Luther King not have pushed for civil rights because thats not what most people wanted at the time? Where would we be if no one had ever challenged the status quo and simply represented the majority held beliefs of the time?

Corbyn is welcome to push for disarmament, but that's something entirely different to how he might act as leader towards previously made decisions of Parliament. It's wrong to pretend that they're the same thing.

 

Edited April 10, 2016 by eFestivals