Oh no - another festival right after the election!

[Havors]

1 minute ago, mjsell said:

1 seat. Tories have 1 seat in Scotland.

 

I think it might be you that is point missing.

haha sorry my bad I was thinking of the 2016 election.... BUT my point still stands.... 1 seat is 1 seat less for the tories. 

[Havors]

4 minutes ago, mjsell said:

You do realise there are more parties than Tories and Labour?

of course... thats half the reason the tories get in to power. More left/leftish parties than there are right. Splits the vote. 

[mjsell]

1 minute ago, Havors said:

haha sorry my bad I was thinking of the 2016 election.... BUT my point still stands.... 1 seat is 1 seat less for the tories. 

And how many seats would that cost Labour in England as a result. Your maths doesnt add up.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

If I lived in a marginal seat I wouldn't. 

It used to be Alastair Darling's seat, but the swing in the last GE was pretty substantial and I get the sense that Joanna Cherry is quite well liked locally - and she's a good performer in the HoC.  If I vote for whoever Labour or the Greens decide will stand (the Scottish Socialists didn't field a candidate last time around) she'll probably still get in.

Ian Murray used to be my MP and if I still lived in his constituency I probably would vote for him.  I have done previously.

Look - I get that you dislike the SNP and I share your suspicion / hatred of blood and soil types, but with the Labour Party currently rolling over for the Tories it's hardly a surprise that a country with a recent history of voting for the left will turn to a party who're at least showing up for the fight.  If you've paid any attention to their current Westminster MPs then they're doing a better job than Labour of providing some opposition.

There's others in this marriage. No one wants a marriage with someone having an affair.

Meanwhile the SNP are 'up for the fight' by wanting to impoverish Scotland by far more than the tories will, and don't give a fuck about impoverishing Wales or  parts of England for Scotland's benefit

I'm fed up with divisive bullshit from Corbynites and the SNP and the tories. Being just like the tories is not better than the tories, it's being tory.

[Havors]

Just now, mjsell said:

And how many seats would that cost Labour in England as a result. Your maths doesnt add up.

why would it cost labour seats in england??

[mjsell]

Just now, Havors said:

why would it cost labour seats in england??

Please see my earlier post:

21 minutes ago, mjsell said:

You've missed my point.

If labour make an agreement with the SNP which means they accept that the SNP will win Scotland, why would swing voters in England see Labour as a more viable candidate? They will effectively be voting for a government that will have a section of MPs that will not have their self-interests at all in mind when making decisions. Not everyone is a staunch labour or Tory supporter, someone in England will see the Tories as a better fit for serving their needs than a coalition with a party that does not care for them in the slightest.

 

[Havors]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

There's others in this marriage. No one wants a marriage with someone having an affair.

Meanwhile the SNP are 'up for the fight' by wanting to impoverish Scotland by far more than the tories will, and don't give a fuck about impoverishing Wales or  parts of England for Scotland's benefit

I'm fed up with divisive bullshit from Corbynites and the SNP and the tories. Being just like the tories is not better than the tories, it's being tory.

On this we can agree.... Blair was just a tory with a red tie... that didnt work which partly gave rise to Corbyn... Labour need someone inbetween Blair and Corbyn maybe? 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, SwedgeAntilles said:

Perhaps not a deal, but there should certainly be an off the record discussion 

where Labour get SNP votes until the SNP and Scotland fuck off - essentially the price for that deal - and then Labour are fucked forever as the party that sold out the UK?

Fuck sake, think it thru!!

[eFestivals]

Just now, Havors said:

On this we can agree.... Blair was just a tory with a red tie... that didnt work which partly gave rise to Corbyn... Labour need someone inbetween Blair and Corbyn maybe? 

Yeah, minimum wage, funded hospitals and schools, open libraries, sure start are all tory policies, aren't they?

For all the while people like you say the most successful Labour PM ever was a tory Labour are fucked.

'the left' will only win as the broad coalition that Blair made them. Calling everyone a tory who isn't 100% corbynite is one for the sparrows or those with brains just as big.

[Havors]

Just now, mjsell said:

Please see my earlier post:

 

Missing the point. It is not about winning Labour a majority and putting them in power, it is about stopping the Tories doing that very thing. So if Labour, or the Greens or Lib Dems all do the same thing, the tories lose the few seats that keep them in power. Which for me is the most important thing. 

[mjsell]

Just now, Havors said:

Missing the point. It is not about winning Labour a majority and putting them in power, it is about stopping the Tories doing that very thing. So if Labour, or the Greens or Lib Dems all do the same thing, the tories lose the few seats that keep them in power. Which for me is the most important thing. 

We were discussing Labour doing a deal with the SNP, and how the SNP are not helping rid the Tories from power.

Working with LD's or Greens is a different matter.

Either way, doing deals with anyone is effectively admitting weaknesses. Labour need to think about improving their postion rather than cosying up with all other parties in an attempt to stop the 'evil Tories'. It only makes the tories look a stronger, more stable option.

[SwedgeAntilles]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

where Labour get SNP votes until the SNP and Scotland fuck off - essentially the price for that deal - and then Labour are fucked forever as the party that sold out the UK?

Fuck sake, think it thru!!

Probably aye, as I said above, Labour are fucked either way. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, SwedgeAntilles said:

Probably aye, as I said above, Labour are fucked either way. 

Yep, they are - by their own choosing, of Corbyn as leader.

When people pointed out that he was utterly shit before he became leader, it wasn't a plot by 'the right' to undermine 'the left', it was a statement of fact. 

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, mjsell said:

Either way, doing deals with anyone is effectively admitting weaknesses. Labour need to think about improving their postion rather than cosying up with all other parties in an attempt to stop the 'evil Tories'. It only makes the tories look a stronger, more stable option.

While normally you'd be right, it seems accepted at the moment that Corbyn has less than no chance of winning a majority (much like the Tories in 2015) so where's the harm?

[RichardWaller]

12 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

The payments were for appearing on Iranian TV:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6

And yes it may be a loan, but considering the property market is out of control in London for ordinary people precisely because rich and well connected people (like £140k a year McCluskey) can get these "loans" makes it pretty bloody hypocritical.

Burnham did far more good for the Hillsborough families alone than Corbyn has done for Labour in leading them to almost certain election defeat. 

Fair play to Burnham for the Hillsborough stuff, a worthy cause. Bit of a weird one too though, PR wise. Course while there's a lot of sympathy and solidarity associated with Hillsborough, there are still people who blame the Liverpool fans. I even knew (no more, thankfully) someone who stood for Labour concillor selection several times, who was adamant that Liverpool fans were to blame for Hillsborough. That was weird, and while it's only one person I do wonder if it's part of something bigger.

Len McLuskey isn't responsible for the housing crisis, that's down to the failure to build adequate and affordable housing. Mind you, even if we did, who's to say they wouldn't all be snapped up by buy to let landlords anyway, 

The PressTV stuff is weird, wonder why they were even bothering to pay him to speak between 2009-2012 when he was nowhere near as famous as he is now. Find it odd if this article is accurate, that OFCOM have banned the network broadcasting over here cos they showed torture. Summat that did happen. Yet, you can print and broadcast lies and keep going strong with the occasional slap on the wrist. Communication's their thing, seems they're more concerned with what's said than whether it's true or not which I find a bit weird.

Still, aren't you sick of the negativity surrounding Corbyn? I know he's no saint, I don't expect any politician to be a saint but like it or not he's the leader of the opposition. All the negativity from Labour members and supporters, it's the equivalent of a footballer saying "our manager's crap, I bet we lose today", scoring an own goal and saying "told you so".

[mjsell]

Just now, DeanoL said:

While normally you'd be right, it seems accepted at the moment that Corbyn has less than no chance of winning a majority (much like the Tories in 2015) so where's the harm?

Long-term harm over short-term power. Precisely the reason they are in the mess they are in now anyway.

Corbyn is the definition of the above. He is the problem whether you like it or not. Until people/he realises this, Labour are as has been said numerous times - fucked.

[SwedgeAntilles]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, they are - by their own choosing, of Corbyn as leader.

When people pointed out that he was utterly shit before he became leader, it wasn't a plot by 'the right' to undermine 'the left', it was a statement of fact. 

Yeah, it wasn't a particularly pleasant thing to watch. In Scotland’s case I'm not sure what difference any of the other candidates would have made. Still, doesn't matter now, damage is done. 

[SwedgeAntilles]

As a quick aside, me in work this morning:

"Should stay out that politics thread, never ends well. You listened to the new Kendrick album last night, go post your thoughts in that thread"

"Reply to Neil's posts about Scotland..."

[CaledonianGonzo]

heh....same

[eFestivals]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

heh....same

yep, diversions and running away are pretty standard to those who don't want to face facts.

see also: GERS denial, where support for SNP has reached the point where even it's own FM calls her own govts publications a crock of shit.

[DeanoL]

8 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Corbyn is the definition of the above. He is the problem whether you like it or not. Until people/he realises this, Labour are as has been said numerous times - fucked.

I don't get the point of statements like that? Unless the Labour backbenchers are planning to vote against the election being called, Corbyn is going to be leading Labour in the next election and it's going to happen in June. And if they lose, as everyone seems to think is a give, he'll then go.

He might not be what you want, but he's what we've got, so we do the best we can with it. 

It's weird because now he's still there and an election is happening, everything the anti-Corbyn folk have been throwing at Corbyn fans gets flipped around - "you'd rather be right than in power", "electability matters more than policy" etc. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And if they lose, as everyone seems to think is a give, he'll then go.

are you sure? Few people seem to be. I'm very definitely not.

Jezza will claim he's not had enough time, and that the failure to win was because of what others did rather than what he's failing to do.

[Waapster]

1 hour ago, RichardWaller said:

Do you not think there's a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy going on with the Labour Party? Before Corbyn was elected leader, the majority outside of Islington had never even heard of him, myself included. It's to be expected that the media would turn against him. I do wonder what the general public would think of Corbyn now, if his party had backed him from the start but we'll never know. When I hear people, Labour supporters and members in particular, going on about how useless Corbyn is, to me it just translates to I don't want him to succeed and I'm going to say and do all I can to stop it. Which is just baffling, it's self-sabotage and given the way the Tories handled their leadership last year, you're making them look good. 

Of course Corbyn didn't back his own party before becoming leader. He broke the Labour whip over 500 times in parliament. Regularly voted against policies from the manifesto, from conference and agreed by the Labour cabinet. Too late now to look for support from others.

[uscore]

If it's not guaranteed that Corbyn will leave, even if/when Labour get a whooping, isn't it best to still vote Labour in areas that they are the best bet to oust a Tory?

Or is being angry at Corbynites more important than Tories being in power?

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Waapster said:

Of course Corbyn didn't back his own party before becoming leader. He broke the Labour whip over 500 times in parliament. Regularly voted against policies from the manifesto, from conference and agreed by the Labour cabinet. Too late now to look for support from others.

yep, it always makes me laugh how Corbynites say Jezza has been undermined and it's out of order, while Jezza was perfectly happy to do  exactly the same thing to other Labour leaders - and plenty of his supporters claim that as part of what proves him so great.