Corbyn appearing on Pyramid!

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

But what's obvious to pretty much anyone is that to stop stuff like this happening in the future, we're better off supporting the party in favour of more funding to the fire service and more regulation on landlords, rather than the party supporting cutting that funding and loosening regulations. Same with the terror attacks: one party wants to increase police funding, one wants to cut it.

That's only true if a different govt would have done all of the necessary things.

There was nothing in even the most recent labour manifesto about Labour doing anything in the area of building regs (and Labour had access to all the same stuff they're now accusing the tories of having 'blocked' - which labour completely ignored just as the tories did by not doing the necessaries for the most recent thing).

So to what you say, I disagree - tho I'm someone with knowledge of three sets of Electrical regs over 4 decades, and how they're arrived at. I know there's no fucker in the process saying "I'm a tory, so I don't care if people die".

[uscore]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I want an honest offering and not a bullshit one that will only disappoint people.

How dreadful of me, eh? It must be because i hate Corbyn.

to be fair it should mean that you hate all politicians.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, uscore said:

I'm not convinced he'll win the next election, but I'm also fairly sure that your assertion that his "momentum is slowing down considerably in general population" is your wishful thinking or a result of your own echo chamber.  I'm not claiming that he's surfing some amazing wave of populism, but his stock is still as high as it's ever been right now, I reckon.

As people might have noticed, I was a Corbyn skeptic and I'll agree 100% with what you say at the end. His stock is currently the highest it's been.

But the's two sides to the coin, and the other is I can't think of a PM who was as low as May is now, so nothing of that high popularity is guaranteed to hold. If the tories were dead and buried as a concept then there's no way May would have managed the result she did.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, uscore said:

to be fair it should mean that you hate all politicians.

which is pretty much right - tho not all of them are lying c**ts. There's even some decent tories, if you're open-minded enough to realise they're just people with different ideas about the world rather than the personification of evil via the party they represent.

Edited June 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[uscore]

I didn't mean

Just now, eFestivals said:

which is pretty much right - tho not all of them are lying c**ts. There's even some decent tories, if you're open-minded enough to realise they're just people with different ideas about the world rather than the personification of evil via the party they represent.

I didn't mind my old local Tory MP.  She definitely wanted good things for her constituents.  She campaigned for free cash machines for the poorer areas.  She still voted Brexit, despite it being about 70% remain here, tho.  I think that might be what did for her and she got ousted in the recent election.

However, I think almost by definition, most of the high-flying Tories are c**ts. Only those with a certain lack of morals/scruples can succeed there.  Happens to the other parties too of course, but not in such high ratios.

[frostypaw]

44 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

He was quick to smarten himself up though.

There is, sadly, only so much you can influence something so ingrained in the British mentality.

Re: good Tories there are, but there are also good people who just stand and watch as their friends set tramps on fire. People are more accurately judged by their voting record than just their colour of choice and certainly come in a scale of evil, but where do you draw the line of supporting the evil?
Looking at how it went for the Lib Dems ....

[uscore]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As people might have noticed, I was a Corbyn skeptic and I'll agree 100% with what you say at the end. His stock is currently the highest it's been.

But the's two sides to the coin, and the other is I can't think of a PM who was as low as May is now, so nothing of that high popularity is guaranteed to hold. If the tories were dead and buried as a concept then there's no way May would have managed the result she did.

Can't argue with that. I'm experienced enough to be prepared for Labour's ability to shoot itself spectacularly in the foot, mouth and or arse, whenever it feels like they've turned a corner.  Similarly the Tories are usually much better at the nitty gritty of politics and must be expected to pull themselves together before too long.

But that experience also tells me to enjoy every moment of optimism when it's there. So you'll not stop me from getting spangled and standing in a festival field singing the Messiah's name when I get the chance.

[DeanoL]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I want an honest offering and not a bullshit one that will only disappoint people.

How dreadful of me, eh? It must be because i hate Corbyn.

No party has every done everything in their manifesto. Because being completely honest doesn't get you elected. That's provable with those facts and stats you like so much!

If you're content to see Labour remain out of power forever then a completely honest offering is viable. Things haven't improved so much that people would vote for that.

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's only true if a different govt would have done all of the necessary things.

There was nothing in even the most recent labour manifesto about Labour doing anything in the area of building regs (and Labour had access to all the same stuff they're now accusing the tories of having 'blocked' - which labour completely ignored just as the tories did by not doing the necessaries for the most recent thing).

So to what you say, I disagree - tho I'm someone with knowledge of three sets of Electrical regs over 4 decades, and how they're arrived at. I know there's no fucker in the process saying "I'm a tory, so I don't care if people die".

But I'm not talking about specifics. Indeed, it's perfectly possible that for any given potential tragedy, the Tories could have happened upon the thing thing prevented it and Labour might not have. Different governments will emphasise different things.

But if you look at the sum of all possible tragedies, it doesn't take a genius to see that the party that want to invest more in our emergency services and have greater regulation on private stuff are going to prevent more of them than the party that want to invest less and have reduced regulations.

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

No party has every done everything in their manifesto.

it wasn't that side of things I was on about.

It was the making big promises because they're "costed" but where the costings are bullshit, clear as day.

Failing to do something is something different to lying about your ability to do something.

I'm actually hoping it really is a deliberate attempt at deception, cos if McD's economic knowledge had tho go past him as believable we really fucking are in big big BIG trouble if Corbyn ever gets into no 10.

But the lie? It's still a lie and is condemnable, no different to how it would be if it were a tory lie.

 

Quote

Because being completely honest doesn't get you elected.

so being no different to a tory c**t will do, and so we'll always get tory c**ts in govt?

I thought Corbyn was supposed to be offering hope, not more bullshit on top of bullshit.

 

Quote

That's provable with those facts and stats you like so much!

Not true. Go on, tell me Blair over-promised to get elected in 1997.

 

Quote

If you're content to see Labour remain out of power forever then a completely honest offering is viable. Things haven't improved so much that people would vote for that.

Your started wrong (see above) and now you're building a bullshit narrative to support it.  Stop it.

 

Quote

But I'm not talking about specifics. Indeed, it's perfectly possible that for any given potential tragedy, the Tories could have happened upon the thing thing prevented it and Labour might not have. Different governments will emphasise different things.

It's very little to do with govts. A  need for a change for building regs/fire regs gets put in front of a govt by 'experts'. It's just about unheard of for them to be ignored or rejected (tho they are subject to Parliamentary processes).

 

Quote

But if you look at the sum of all possible tragedies, it doesn't take a genius to see that the party that want to invest more in our emergency services and have greater regulation on private stuff are going to prevent more of them than the party that want to invest less and have reduced regulations.

That's true, but that still doesn't pin anything on the tories.

And the other side to putting more resources into building safety is less nice stuff for everyone to have - so it's a trade off.

We don't go for perfection in cars; we could. We don't for perfection in houses; we could. About the only things we do do that for is planes and trains.

There's reasons why, and it's fuck all to do with tory ideology.

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[morethanaphelan]

On 2017-6-27 at 2:20 PM, eFestivals said:

they have the choice to always be demanding better, even of the people they're choosing to support. It's not like everyone is always going to think Mr X is perfect, anyway. So why feel it's not sayable?

 

The 'racist homophobic and bigoted' party bit is being played-up (tho they are that too). They're merely NI's version of tories, and where the parties on the other side often hold the same views. Those views (specifically) are more about the region than the party.

The PLP's "blind faith" is proven fact, and Jezza claiming he's proven the unelectable tag wrong by remaining unelected is beyond the huge misrepresentation of your 'blind faith'.

That might be right, but their effect doesn't start and end there. 

Personally I'm not entirely sure what i think of it, tho I am concerned that it might turn some people away from voting Labour when they might not turn away otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, know this is like a week late, but the DUP are not the Tories, by a long stretch. They're closer to UKIP or the BNP.  They're a party that backed Brexit despite agriculture being the North's main industry and being a significant beneficiary of EU funds. They put isolation - local and international - before prosperity every single time. 

I would argue that most of the more pernicious religious views are not represented in the community that elects them. They get elected because other moderate unionist parties are weak and splitting the vote would lead to significant gains for Sinn Fein. 

Left-wing parties, with left-wing manifestos are almost level with the Tories in the HoC. That suggests Centrist policy is not proven fact. What is fact, is Labour's loss of Scotland - which is directly attributable to the failures of Blair and Brown - has hamstrung them in terms of perception. If Labour had those seats back we would not be having this conversation. But they don't. I think they can gain some of those seats that the Tories took there next time out however. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by morethanaphelan

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, morethanaphelan said:

but the DUP are not the Tories, by a long stretch. They're closer to UKIP or the BNP.

and much the same would apply to the supposedly 'more-progressive' parties in NI too, sadly. It's not merely the DUP but also their opponents that share many of the same views.

5 minutes ago, morethanaphelan said:

I would argue that most of the more pernicious religious views are not represented in the community that elects them. They get elected because other moderate unionist parties are weak and splitting the vote would lead to significant gains for Sinn Fein. 

I don't disagree with the idea that "the more pernicious religious views are not represented in the community that elects them", and for more than just the DUP too.

But on both sides of that tribal divide the problem is less the parties and more the people who give those parties their votes to keep the tribal and not-progressive going.

But hey, the unionists eventually accepted universal franchise as right and proper - it's not something I've heard a complaint about in decades - so perhaps the region will move on with stuff like gay rights and abortion eventually.

(but just as an aside it doesn't take fruitcakes and regional conflict to keep hold of nutty views. Merkel in Germany only dropped her opposition to gay marriage yesterday)