Jump to content

Oh no - another festival right after the election!


Wickedfaerie
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

An election does not have the most charismatic person in the world standing, it has a couple of politicians. Both will be shorter than the best on the charisma front, and the charisma measure is against the alternative politician and not against the world's most charismatic.

Tho for the average voter, charisma (as well as policy detail) comes secondary to the perceived competence for office of the politicians on offer (again, measured against each other, and not against the best in the world).

After all, if someone is incompetent it doesn't matter if they have the best policies in the world, because their incompetence will fuck them up.

And with charisma, if they don't have the charisma to make their policies seem believable and sound, the public will again consider that person won't wield the necessary influence to properly progress those policies, so they again become that potential fuck up.

Like it or not, some people are better suited for leadership roles than others. And in Parliament, May has been considered suitable for leadership roles by 5 different tory leaders over 20 years, while Jezza has been considered for leadership roles by zero of five leaders over 30 years. There's reasons why.

It's all a bit egg and chicken really. Course, charisma and competence are different things, I don't think being competent can make someome appear charismatic but I think being charismatic can certainly make someone appear competent. Each to their own, but I don't think charisma should be as important as it is in politics. 

There are reasons why people are considered for leadership roles and not. I think a reason greater than competence for people being considered or not for leadership roles is their willingness to toe the line. People have digs at Corbyn for voting against his leaders, I don't know if people think he's never had a good reason to. You can't reasonably agree or disagree with anyone all the time. Is there anything Corbyn voted against that you could bring youself to agree with? Against Iraq war, for an investigation into it, against tuition fees, against the welfare bill, anything at all? There's much more to getting leadership roles than presumed competence. Yes, Corbyn was an unproven leader, but he was being undermined by Labour big wigs before he was leader, so he's never been given a fair chance to prove himself. Course we'll never know, but I'd love to know where Labour would be now if people were willing to be led, because that's important too, just seems too many people have different ideas of what the greater good is as far as Labour goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 504
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Care to tell me what I've made up? FFS. :lol:

I've simply made a statement of Momentum's attitude towards the polls - rejection of the only measure there is (a measure that has constantly proven itself as broadly accurate)  -  which you're mirroring. Rejection of evidence is not what smart minds do.

There might be results all over the place in individual seats, but the share of the vote for all parties will come in close to what the final polls say. 

Whether or not the polls now will reflect those final polls no one can know, tho we can know that in the last election Miliband was ahead in the polls at this point and still lost, so it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the polling of Labour now - which for the last few months has been showing Jezza trailing by around 10% to 25% - is revealing that Labour is heading towards a massive defeat.

There's no point denying the evidence.

There are loads of polls. You've said yourself that results and bookies' odds can be manipulated. Which is true, but I'd love to know what evidence you've got that Momentum supporters are running to the bookies to influence Corbyn's odds.

You've got a habit of cherry picking what people say and deliberately misrepresenting.

This,

3 hours ago, RichardWaller said:

Eh, results are going to be all over the place. Think it'd be quite wise for everyone to ignore polls, unless they like a bit of baiting or doom mongering.

Is different to this.

3 hours ago, RichardWaller said:

Think it'd be quite wise for everyone to ignore polls, unless they like a bit of baiting or doom mongering.

Which is very different to this 

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

This is a standard line from the likes of momentum. All the polls are lies.

So stop making things up, stop drawing your own wild conclusions from what people say, all you're doing is lying. I said polls are going to be all over the place, which they are. As you have said yourself, the ITV one may have been manipulated by Momentum. Well, you didn't say may have, you said it is, an indisputable fact. Either way, polls can be manipulated and there are gonna be loads more. Maybe I should've said "polls should be taken with a pinch of salt cos they can be manipulated", but maybe you'd have still told me I'm saying all polls are lies :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

In other faked election numbers, the bookies odds for a Labour victory have around halved in the last 48 hours ... but it's got nothing to do with an instruction put out by Momentum for their members to all put a tenner on Jezza to change the odds, so they can claim his popularity is rising.

Yep, that's how far they're going to fake stuff. 

That's... sort of clever though isn't it? It alone isn't going to win anything but I can see a sustained attempt to hit things along these lines having a benefit. It certainly strikes me as better than not doing it.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There's no point denying the evidence.

Whereas the point of embracing the evidence is?

Because usually it's to go "okay, we're behind and need to do something different and see if the numbers improve, we've got six weeks."

If your contention is that Corbyn is so far behind in the polls that making up that gap before the election is utterly impossible, then yeah, may as well deny the evidence because there are only two possibilities: all the evidence is wrong, or we're going to lose. And I since it seems unlikely that Labour are going to withdraw all their candidates and concede the election right now, may as well go with the other path.

There's no point in just declaring that it's lost and hopeless right now either. Even on a personal level, may as well enjoy a last few weeks of hope before it all goes to shite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PS: the result in that ITV poll has *everything* to do with Momentum.

One of their 'plans' is to try to warp the manipulatable to show Jezza as more popular than he really is, in the hope it will encourage more to vote for him.

 

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Don't expect you've got any proof of that, or the bookies odds theory you've spoke about either. Still, as good excuse as any to have a pop at Momentum and Corbyn eh?

I can completely understand and justify it if it is true though. I don't care whether it's in the name of Corbyn, May, Fallon, any of the Green's co-leaders, Sturgeon, whoever the fuck's leading UKIP these days -  if you can manipulate poll results and they encourage even a small amount of people to vote for you, fair play to em. Bit crafty and underhand, but it's British politics we're talking about, we've seen where talking about kindness and respect has got Corbyn..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

There are reasons why people are considered for leadership roles and not.

Competence, and competence, and competence.

There's fuck all point putting an incompetent in charge of anything at all. They'll fuck it up.

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

I think a reason greater than competence for people being considered or not for leadership roles is their willingness to toe the line.

Nope. That's very definitely secondary to competence. 

Towing the line might be in there as a close second, but if the person towing the line is useless, that's no good to anyone.

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

People have digs at Corbyn for voting against his leaders, I don't know if people think he's never had a good reason to.

No one doubts he's had his reasons, tho plenty doubt how well founded those reasons are in a country-sense.

McD - and i think Corbyn (tho might be wrong with that) - voted against against peace in Northern ireland. I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt there's many in this country or NI who think his reasons were good reasons.

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Is there anything Corbyn voted against that you could bring youself to agree with? Against Iraq war, for an investigation into it, against tuition fees, against the welfare bill, anything at all?

It's dead easy being against stuff. Coming up with something better is where the meaningful is.

He's currently against unemployment, and for full employment. Thing is, his offer of full employment is (against other things he's said) a promise of employment to all of the EU, and at a wage of 30% greater than all of the EU might get now in the UK.

Is that offer better than the fairly minimal unemployment of now? The full range of opinions evaluate that offer, and might decide it's a great thing, or might decide it's an impossible thing no matter how good they might think it is in principle (or anything else).

Me, I just can't see how it's deliverable, when combined with the £10ph offer that's alongside it, it will put an extra wages cost of £400 per person per month onto many employers who simply can't afford to cover it, and the result will far fewer jobs and not the full employment that's being claimed.

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

There's much more to getting leadership roles than presumed competence.

Really?

Care to tell me the people you know that have been put into positions of responsibility by someone who regards them as incompetent? :lol:

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Yes, Corbyn was an unproven leader, but he was being undermined by Labour big wigs before he was leader,

Does the fact of him showing himself as unsuitable as a leader count for nothing? :blink:

He was last on the list for the role even amongst the small left wing clique he's part of - so even his best political buddies don't think him the most competent. He got the role *ONLY* because (his own words) "it's my turn to stand".

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

so he's never been given a fair chance to prove himself.

Fucks sake. :lol:

He's been proving himself for 30 years. It's the proof of those 30 years which drives the objections to him.

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Course we'll never know, but I'd love to know where Labour would be now if people were willing to be led, because that's important too,

People are willing to be led. They're quite happy to be led by someone. They're going to vote in huge huge numbers to be led by May - so you can't reasonably claim people aren't prepared to be led.

They're just not willing to be led by Jezza. Because Jezza is Jezza.

 

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

just seems too many people have different ideas of what the greater good is as far as Labour goes.

There's HUGE numbers of normally-labour voters who are deciding - with their own brains, no more or less good than yours or mine - that having Jezza, McD, Abbott and Thornbury negotiate brexit would be a disaster, and that it's waaaaay better if it's done by May, Boris, Davis & Fox*.

(* tho it's also worth noting that many people don't expect Boris, Davis & Fox to be the ones doing it following the election)

Are they wrong? Who knows. We'll never get to find out, because only one of those teams will be doing it.

Meanwhile, that's their opinion, an opinion as valid as your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

You've said yourself that results and bookies' odds can be manipulated.

I've said *ONLY* the fact that Momentum *ARE* manipulating the bookies odds.

Them doing that will make fuck all difference to the result.

 

21 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Which is true, but I'd love to know what evidence you've got that Momentum supporters are running to the bookies to influence Corbyn's odds.

I find things out that really happen. You clearly don't.

Find yourself a friend who's a momentum member and get them to forward you the email.

 

21 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

You've got a habit of cherry picking what people say and deliberately misrepresenting.

No, i'm referencing *all* proper-methodology polls.

rather than cherry-picking just the self-selecting ITV poll which has no methodology.

Fucks sake. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

So stop making things up,

You've said it again, when you didn't even attempt to back up the last time you said it. :lol:

I said "This is a standard line from the likes of momentum. All the polls are lies."

That is not made up. That is the fact of what momentum supporters do. You know, a real thing. 

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

That's... sort of clever though isn't it? It alone isn't going to win anything but I can see a sustained attempt to hit things along these lines having a benefit. It certainly strikes me as better than not doing it.

I can't disagree that it's better than not doing it, but....

wouldn't a leader who people might vote for, with policies people felt he was capable of implementing in a sound way be a much better thing? :blink:

Instead, they think faking is a better way to go. Start with lies, win with lies, and then what happens? :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Don't expect you've got any proof of that, or the bookies odds theory you've spoke about either. Still, as good excuse as any to have a pop at Momentum and Corbyn eh?

that's it, say all the evidence that you don't want to accept is made up. Irt's the smart, rational thing, yeah? :P

Do you think other people are stupid enough to think an evidence-denier has all the answers? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eFestivals said:

I can't disagree that it's better than not doing it, but....

wouldn't a leader who people might vote for, with policies people felt he was capable of implementing in a sound way be a much better thing? :blink:

Yes. But we've got six weeks. And coulda/shoula/woulda does nothing now.

Quote

 

Instead, they think faking is a better way to go. Start with lies, win with lies, and then what happens? :lol:

 

We'd be in power so it doesn't matter? I mean that's the line the anti-Corbynites have been pushing for years. The important thing is to get elected. Better in power on lies than in opposition while remaining true to your "principles" I thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

living in the real world.

Cos it's what you get whether you embrace the evidence or reject it. ;)

Put it this way: if the polls are all true, there's a 0% chance Corbyn gets elected right? You've said it yourself and I don't disagree.

So what are the chances all the polls are wrong? Miniscule. But there's a chance. It's greater than 0% if not by much. 

So accepting that we are now fighting this election (and yes, voting for it was probably another cock up it's too late to reverse) do you go with the path that gives you no chance of winning or the path that gives you a shot, however small.

Edited by DeanoL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

We'd be in power so it doesn't matter? I mean that's the line the anti-Corbynites have been pushing for years. The important thing is to get elected. Better in power on lies than in opposition while remaining true to your "principles" I thought?

so the tories are evil because they're liars, but liar-Labour would be a great thing? :lol:

If power now is suddenly so important, how come it's not been important for all of the time people have been pointing outy that power now isn't possible with Jezza?

It's a strategy that started as flawed and which keeps on exposing how deep those flaws are.

"my shit leader is less shit than your shit leader" is the strategy of morons. Get a leader who you don't think is shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Put it this way: if the polls are all true, there's a 0% chance Corbyn gets elected right? You've said it yourself and I don't disagree.

So what are the chances all the polls are wrong? Miniscule. But there's a chance. It's greater than 0% if not by much. 

So accepting that we are now fighting this election (and yes, voting for it was probably another cock up it's too late to reverse) do you go with the path that gives you no chance of winning or the path that gives you a shot, however small.

Go with the shot that has minimal chance if you like.

It's not going to stop me from pointing out that adopting such a moronic stance as electing jezza in the first place makes it all meaningless. It was lost at that point, and what happens now isn't going to change it.

(caveat: outside events might change it, but that would have absoluetly fuck all to do with Jezza).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eFestivals said:

so the tories are evil because they're liars, but liar-Labour would be a great thing? :lol:

If power now is suddenly so important, how come it's not been important for all of the time people have been pointing outy that power now isn't possible with Jezza?

It's a strategy that started as flawed and which keeps on exposing how deep those flaws are.

You're flipping around the very point I'm making -I don't believe that getting into power is the most important thing, but most of those opposing Jeremy do, and have been shouting at him about it for years. 

Quote

"my shit leader is less shit than your shit leader" is the strategy of morons. Get a leader who you don't think is shit.

Yes. Can't do that in six weeks though. 

The only concern now should be doing as well in this election as possible. We can recriminate in June but giving up now just seems pointless? I get that you think we can't win. I don't see the point of convincing others that we can't win. You get to go "see I was right" and that's about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't believe that getting into power is the most important thing,

then *NOTHING* can be improved over what the tories are doing.

Cos that's the result of that strategy. Support unelectable Labour and get the tories as a consequence.

 

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

but most of those opposing Jeremy do, and have been shouting at him about it for years. 

because they want improvements over what the tories are doing - and some improvements are better than none at all.

 

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes. Can't do that in six weeks though. 

which only says that Jezza and his supporters had decided they wanted to lose the election long before it was called.

Too late now for anything but the loser that Jezza wants Labour to be.

 

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The only concern now should be doing as well in this election as possible. We can recriminate in June but giving up now just seems pointless? I get that you think we can't win. I don't see the point of convincing others that we can't win. You get to go "see I was right" and that's about it. 

I don't have to convince you. You already know it.

And I'm not convincing anyone else either. There's those who reject evidence to go with faith-only who won't be convinced by me, and there's those who do do facts who are already convinced t5h4e same as me.

It changes nothing to speak the truth.

Those who speak the truth gain the credibility to perhaps convince people of Labour next time.

(just to be clear, that last line isn't a self-reference, but a comment about how those in the party machine who said Jezza would fail will be the ones who come thru in the future)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Competence, and competence, and competence.

There's fuck all point putting an incompetent in charge of anything at all. They'll fuck it up.

 

Quote

Nope. That's very definitely secondary to competence. 

Towing the line might be in there as a close second, but if the person towing the line is useless, that's no good to anyone.

You must be able to think of loads of MPs who've got cabinet and leading roles and you've thought they were incompetent? I can't even count how many people who I'd consider incomepetent have ended up in high places. Depends what you think is incompetent though I suppose, personally I'd consider Iain Duncan Smith's tenure as Work and Pensions Secretary and Jeremy Hunt as Health Secretary to be woefully incompetent, to others they're a resounding success.

Hard to measure someone's competence without giving them an opportunity though.

Quote

No one doubts he's had his reasons, tho plenty doubt how well founded those reasons are in a country-sense.

McD - and i think Corbyn (tho might be wrong with that) - voted against against peace in Northern ireland. I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt there's many in this country or NI who think his reasons were good reasons.

The way people oppose Corbyn so fiercely I wonder if they do doubt he's had his reasons to vote against the party. I'm not even a Corbyn supporter, I just don't like seeing people being attacked all the time. Labour needs unity desperately, but it doesn't seem either side is willing to budge. People slag off Momentum and Corbyn, and blame them for disunity when the blame should be shared. Corbyn's opponents, yourself included, create conflict.

Quote

It's dead easy being against stuff. Coming up with something better is where the meaningful is.

He's currently against unemployment, and for full employment. Thing is, his offer of full employment is (against other things he's said) a promise of employment to all of the EU, and at a wage of 30% greater than all of the EU might get now in the UK.

Is that offer better than the fairly minimal unemployment of now? The full range of opinions evaluate that offer, and might decide it's a great thing, or might decide it's an impossible thing no matter how good they might think it is in principle (or anything else).

Me, I just can't see how it's deliverable, when combined with the £10ph offer that's alongside it, it will put an extra wages cost of £400 per person per month onto many employers who simply can't afford to cover it, and the result will far fewer jobs and not the full employment that's being claimed.

Aye, it is easy being anti-this, anti-that. But even if someone doesn't have the perfect right answer, personally I'd rather them do nowt than create the perfect storm.

Full employment and £10 minimum wage are nice ideas. Clamping down on tax avoidance too. I can see how it'd be a struggle to get any of that going and I can see a lot of businesses stropping off and taking jobs with them, but I don't see why the state can't replace or compete with them.

Quote

Really?

Care to tell me the people you know that have been put into positions of responsibility by someone who regards them as incompetent? :lol:

Like I said earlier, people have different ideas of competence. Jeremy Hunt is a disaster for the NHS in my opinion, but doing a great job according to Theresa May.

Quote

Does the fact of him showing himself as unsuitable as a leader count for nothing? :blink:

He was last on the list for the role even amongst the small left wing clique he's part of - so even his best political buddies don't think him the most competent. He got the role *ONLY* because (his own words) "it's my turn to stand".

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Yes, he's a big boy, he's responsible for himself, if he wants to be a leader he'll need at least some of the characteristics, to be persuasive, authoritative, endearing, strong.. But I don't care who you are, any leader of any organisation need support. 

I can't remember exactly when it was, but I remember Dawn Butler in an interview with Kay Burley (poor sod) being grilled on why she'd nominated Corbyn and she kept saying that she wanted to broaden the platform, but wanted Burnham (I think) to win. Can't imagine many people who nominated him actually expected him to win. Hands up, I'd never heard of him till then.

Quote

Fucks sake. :lol:

He's been proving himself for 30 years. It's the proof of those 30 years which drives the objections to him.

He's been an MP 30 years, course it's a different job. He hasn't been trying to prove leadership for 30 years..

Quote

People are willing to be led. They're quite happy to be led by someone. They're going to vote in huge huge numbers to be led by May - so you can't reasonably claim people aren't prepared to be led.

They're just not willing to be led by Jezza. Because Jezza is Jezza.

I think May probably will win. I was talking about Labour rather than the country. It's just ugly. The party as a whole is sending out an image of disunity, discontent, disloyalty and nastiness and bitterness. The "anyone but Corbyn" types and Momentum, they're all undermining Labour.

Quote

There's HUGE numbers of normally-labour voters who are deciding - with their own brains, no more or less good than yours or mine - that having Jezza, McD, Abbott and Thornbury negotiate brexit would be a disaster, and that it's waaaaay better if it's done by May, Boris, Davis & Fox*.

(* tho it's also worth noting that many people don't expect Boris, Davis & Fox to be the ones doing it following the election)

Are they wrong? Who knows. We'll never get to find out, because only one of those teams will be doing it.

Meanwhile, that's their opinion, an opinion as valid as your own.

Brexit is big, but there's much more to the general election than Brexit. How about talking about the harm Tories have done to the NHS, how foodbank use has sky rocketed, how we've got the perfect storm of a growing need and shrinking provision of mental health services, etc. 

Who knows indeeed, and I'm not sure I want to really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I've said *ONLY* the fact that Momentum *ARE* manipulating the bookies odds.

Them doing that will make fuck all difference to the result.

 

I find things out that really happen. You clearly don't.

Find yourself a friend who's a momentum member and get them to forward you the email.

 

No, i'm referencing *all* proper-methodology polls.

rather than cherry-picking just the self-selecting ITV poll which has no methodology.

Fucks sake. :lol:

Why are you unwilling to share your proof that Momentum are manipulating the bookies?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

You've said it again, when you didn't even attempt to back up the last time you said it. :lol:

I said "This is a standard line from the likes of momentum. All the polls are lies."

That is not made up. That is the fact of what momentum supporters do. You know, a real thing. 

 

So you must've been talking to someone else, even though you quoted me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RichardWaller said:

You must be able to think of loads of MPs who've got cabinet and leading roles and you've thought they were incompetent?

Yep. But that's my opinion where I'm coming from a different place to the person who appointed them.

But did the people who appointed them think them incompetent? Or did the people appointing them think them the most-competent for that role?

Only a moron would appoint someone to a job who they didn't feel was the best person for the job.

They don't appoint the biggest arse-licker, they appoint the person who is (ITO) the most competent for the role (and perhaps considered with how much of an arselicker they are, but not purely on arselicking).

It's competence before arselicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

that's it, say all the evidence that you don't want to accept is made up. Irt's the smart, rational thing, yeah? :P

Do you think other people are stupid enough to think an evidence-denier has all the answers? :lol:

Well, no.. I've asked for evidence, I've not said you've made it up but carry on telling me I'm saying things I'm not anyway. You've claimed that Momentum are manipulating the bookies and that ITV poll. You won't prove it, you've just come back with "oh, well you go to Momentum and get someone to send you an email" or whatever.  I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just not going to take you at face value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...