Oh no - another festival right after the election!

[RichardWaller]

2 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

Because people buying second homes in London is part of what is making housing unaffordable there. It's pushing up property prices far beyond what most people can afford. People like Len McCluskey (salary 140k and rising every year despite much of his members getting pay freezes) shouldn't even need help to buy the property they desire in London. For him to beat the socialist drum and do this at the same time is immensely hypocritical - particularly considering the huge profit he will make on that sale.

The fact you'd love your employer to do that is besides the point - most of us don't have employers who can do that. The fact there are a minority of people like him buying second homes that do have that ability is what makes housing an impossible dream for most workers in London. 

Didn't know it was a second home. Yeah I see what you mean about it looking hypocritical, would imagine if I were on a salary like that even I could get a mortgage like anyone else, would've hoped Unite could've thought of something better to do with their money but hey ho. 

Quote

You're sick of men in expensive suits with media training?! 

Okay let's forget politics for a second. Let's talk about job interviews. If you turned up for a prestigious job interview, had been trained for it and were wearing a smart suit, and you knew the guy next to you had no training and was dressed in the sorts of "suits" that Jezza is in half the time, who do you think would get the job? 

Being Leader of the Opposition is in effect a five year long (or in this case a two year) interview to be PM. They are being judged by the electorate as whether they're fit to lead the country. And a lot of what they're judged on are things that you think are irrelevant like presentation, speaking skills, how they're dressed. But that's exactly the same in the real world as it is in politics.  

All those things that you are sick of are actually really important. Media training is really, REALLY important. I can guarantee you Corbyn will have had plenty of media training since he's become leader, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Yes large sections of the media aren't fair at him but equally he is terrible with the media. He makes it far too easy for them.

Yeah, I know who'd get the job. I know that the way someone dresses and presents themselves is important, I accept it but I don't have to agree with it. Appearances can be very deceiving. I didn't say I thought they were irrelevant, I know they're not, I just think we're getting our priorities wrong. Reminds me of just after Cameron got the Tory leadership, reading a paper in the break room at work. Might've actually been The S*n but I didn't buy it so that's ok. It had a double page spread banging on about what Cameron rolling his shirt sleeves up means, and what him pointing with his thumb means. I just remember reading it and thinking fuck me, is this what people are voting for.. 

Course Corbyn's needed media training, I just wish the media didn't wield as much influence over politics as it does. Sometimes you can't win though, Miliband tried keeping The S*n sweet, posed with a copy of it and got slated. 

Quote

Look at this, the day Labour announced their "maximum wage" policy (in fact it was talking about a ratio between the lowest and the highest paid) - Corbyn is repeatedly evasive on it and falls into the trap of describing it as a "maximum wage":

Look at this - hiding from a reporter and getting his aide to have a go at them! It was a completely reasonable question...

Unless you wanted a number or ratio out of him there and then, I wouldn't call that evasive. He said he'd like to see a cap put in place, he'd like to do something about the gap between the highest and lowest paid at work. Course, maybe he could've done a few sums and a bit of homework before this appearance. Interesting choice of words there though, saying about him falling into the trap of calling it a "maximum wage".  I agree with that, it was a trap. I don't know if calling it a wage cap or any other term you can think of would make it more paletable than a maximum wage. Suppose that ties into the whole media training thing, just got to avoid or emphasise certain words as they're bound to get seized up on.

Quote

And let's not even get started on the Virgin Trains fiasco. The stupid man records a video from the vestibule of a train talking about how the train is "ram packed". The train company Virgin has a clear prerogative to discredit a man who wants to renationalise the railways. And sure enough they release a video where he walks past scores of empty seats. It doesn't matter they had tickets on - he could have still sat in them. How could he be so stupid to film that in the first place? There was a perfectly good point to make about railways in this country but Corbyn managed to undermine it completely. This is where being actually good at spin and working the media is important, or else you'll be forever discredited like Corbyn has been.

Yes much of the media have been against him but I can guarantee they'll be against his successor. However if his successor is actually good with the media (which needs a combination of natural abilities and training) and presents themselves a bit more competently they will find it a hell of a lot more difficult than the absolute field day they've had with this idiot. 

That video is odd, no idea what was going on there or when or where it was. I wish he'd took it, stood there and said bring it on and spoke passionately about how confident he is about winning or summat, but people will find negatives no matter what he does. Remember the piss taking Ed Miliband had with his "hell yes, I'm tough enough" Course the alternative is looking like a coward.

The Virgin Trains thing is frustrating, it's a true and valid point that our trains are generally too busy and too expensive but now we're acting like they're fine? Lol imagine the backlash if he'd sat in a reserved seat?

Quote

Rubbish. Absolute and utter horse shit. I'm sorry, but this is not backed up by any of the evidence whatsoever. 

He started his leadership with the worst approval ratings of any new party leader on record. How can you blame that on the Labour Party?! Of course the right wing media played their part but it's also true when he was first elected much of the public knew little about him. The Labour leadership contest generated a lot of interest in left wing circles but passed a lot of the country by. 

Do you really think most of the country really makes their mind up on Corbyn based on what Labour MPs say? Certainly apart from the odd comments from Labour affiliated people in the media most have kept their mouths shut since the second leadership election. They certainly have not "inundated" the right wing press. Just 14% of those polled nationwide back Corbyn as their preferred PM (47% for May, 28% for neither). It's absolute fantasy to think anything but a tiny amount of that gap is down to what Labour MPs have said. Maybe he would have picked up a few per cent but that's about it. 

Corbyn is doing the Tories' work for them. There's a reason why lots of Tories paid the 3 quid to vote for him first time round (of course he would have won with or without that help). He's providing an utterly ineffectual opposition. Much of the country have never and will never take him seriously regardless of Labour support. He is a poor orator. He's not particularly intelligent. His strategy of only appealing to a narrow section of the electorate has always been doomed to failure. Any politicians poor approval ratings are their own responsibility far more than they are anyone else's. The fact folks like you still fail to see how this is primarily Corbyn's fault is part of the reason he's leading Labour to a historic defeat and part of the reason Labour may still be in a lot of trouble when trying to find a competent leader to take them out of this mess. 

The knives were out before he even started his leadership though. I'm not saying the Labour Party are solely responsible for his ratings, not by any stretch, but they've certainly helped. 

I mean, bloody hell, this was what, a month before he was elected? http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2015/08/10/nice-guy-good-mp-making-the-weather-but-it-has-to-be-abc-anyone-but-corbyn-labour-is-finished-if-he-wins/ Course, now that looks very mild.

I think a lot of people will be influenced by what Labour MPs, past and present, have got to say, that's certainly the intention. Not the country, of course. The undecideds, the people who trust Blair and Campbell. Admittedly, the criticism of Corbyn from Labour MPs, councillors and members has been quieter since the last election but I don't suppose many have changed their minds. I'm glad you recognise that he could've picked up a few more percent without the criticism of his own party, I wonder if it could've been more. Course we'll never know. The damage has already been done, there are certainly enough people out there who believed he represents the end of the Labour Party before he was even elected. 

Opposition isn't purely up to the leader though. Like unity, opposition is a shared responsiblity and there's only so much he can do when people despise him. His ten pledges are much further reaching than the narrow section you say he appeals to. Course that doesn't go into the maths of it all, but I don't think the majority of voters do either. I don't even care if people think these ten pledges are cloud cuckoo land. Fuck it, if I was voting for what I expected to happen I probably wouldn't bother voting at all. I'm gonna vote for what I want to happen, what I think is best for the country. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. If it at least starts a debate and gets some ball rolling somewhere or other, it's better than where we are now cos right now, to me at least, any vote feels like a wasted vote.

[snorton82]

Are all you lefties going to be ok to attend Glastonbury after the election? I imagine a large percentage of you will be locked up for desecrating war memorials

 

 

[RichardWaller]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

get back to me when you're up to speed. I don't have the time to bring you up to speed on all the politics of the world.

But consider this: Jezza says that the foriegn involvement of the UK and the USA in Syria - bombing ISIS (and no one else) - is evil, but you're suggesting that the Iranian foreign involvement in Syria, bombing anyone that's not on-side with Assad, might be OK.

Fuck me, do you want to give up on the telling people they're saying things they're not lark or not? If you think it helps you win an argument when you're inventing what the other side is saying, good for you, enjoy that.

At what point does "I don't know what Iran are doing in Syria" mean I'm suggesting anything like you say I am?

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Fuck me, do you want to give up on the telling people they're saying things they're not lark or not? If you think it helps you win an argument when you're inventing what the other side is saying, good for you, enjoy that.

At what point does "I don't know what Iran are doing in Syria" mean I'm suggesting anything like you say I am?

If you don't know, why try to use it as a defence of Jezza, as you did?

That was *after* you'd accused me of making it up *ONLY* on the basis that you didn't know about what Jezza had said about Iran being 'helpful' by warring in Syria.

Edited April 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[not worthy]

12 minutes ago, snorton82 said:

Are all you lefties going to be ok to attend Glastonbury after the election? I imagine a large percentage of you will be locked up for desecrating war memorials

 

 

really, I'm just going to chuck all my up votes your way from now on

[Trout Mask Replica]

ITV are running a poll which shows Corbyn at 65% and May at 24% with 115k votes cast. Now I know this isn't a proper poll but it certainly doesn't fit the narrative we're getting from the beeb and mainstream press. 

Maybe pop by and give it a vote, whatever your preference if only for the sake of balance. 

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/poll-who-do-you-want-to-be-the-next-prime-minister

[phillyfaddle]

On 18/04/2017 at 1:02 PM, Mr.Tease said:

Anyone who works for the NHS, social services and on mental health will tell you the harm being done and what is in store if changes aren't made. 

And education. Dire straits!!

[Crazyfool01]

9 minutes ago, phillyfaddle said:

And education. Dire straits!!

are they rumoured ?

[Alex DeLarge]

4 hours ago, snorton82 said:

Are all you lefties going to be ok to attend Glastonbury after the election? I imagine a large percentage of you will be locked up for desecrating war memorial

"Respect the troops!!! But not Dan Jarvis though."

Edited April 20, 2017 by Alex DeLarge

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

We don't live In a dictatorship, the PM doesn't decide everything themselves, the party as a whole does and that is determined by its ideology, its donors and a myriad of other factors. The PM (or leader of the opposition) is a figurehead and is there to drive their parties policies through, make them seem credible and to generally inspire confidence in them and their party.

Corbyns lack of personality and charisma (to name just a few of his faults) are massive issues regardless of how good or bad his or his parties policies are, because with him in charge they will never cut through to the general public. Like it or not charisma and personality are vitally important at base level to us human beings, it's why I'm not an actor but Brad Pitt is, it's why we are persuaded to or choose to buy the things we buy.

Thats why you need a happy medium, whoever is charge of the Labour Party won't be running around like a mad despot imposing their own individual desires on the country, but they have to be palatable to the general public for their parties policies to be taken seriously.

[Waapster]

I would vote for Deaf Nobby Burton before Brad Pitt any day

[DeanoL]

9 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

Being Leader of the Opposition is in effect a five year long (or in this case a two year) interview to be PM. They are being judged by the electorate as whether they're fit to lead the country. And a lot of what they're judged on are things that you think are irrelevant like presentation, speaking skills, how they're dressed. But that's exactly the same in the real world as it is in politics.  

 

All true but then: Trump. Fucking Trump. 

It's like how some of the tech companies don't hire the guy in the nice suit, because he probably won't be "blue sky" enough for them. There's a way of spinning Corbyn as the anti-establishment guy (even though that would be complete bollocks) and from today it looks like that's what they're going with. Still don't fancy his chances much but it's the only shot they have, and it give me some faith that his campaign team at least seem to know what they're doing.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

6 hours ago, DeanoL said:

All true but then: Trump. Fucking Trump. 

It's like how some of the tech companies don't hire the guy in the nice suit, because he probably won't be "blue sky" enough for them. There's a way of spinning Corbyn as the anti-establishment guy (even though that would be complete bollocks) and from today it looks like that's what they're going with. Still don't fancy his chances much but it's the only shot they have, and it give me some faith that his campaign team at least seem to know what they're doing.

That's exactly the angle he's going for, the anti establishment angle, I can't see how it can work though and I don't find it believable. It's one of the angles Farage used about brexit, and Trump used against Clinton, but Corbyn was famously limp wristed about Brexit so I'm not sure who he can expect the general public to buy it.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, Trout Mask Replica said:

ITV are running a poll which shows Corbyn at 65% and May at 24% with 115k votes cast. Now I know this isn't a proper poll but it certainly doesn't fit the narrative we're getting from the beeb and mainstream press. 

Maybe pop by and give it a vote, whatever your preference if only for the sake of balance. 

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/poll-who-do-you-want-to-be-the-next-prime-minister

it's a self selecting poll, for christ's sakes. It's like going into a cake shop and finding out everyone inside loves cake.

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. 

[RichardWaller]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If you don't know, why try to use it as a defence of Jezza, as you did?

That was *after* you'd accused me of making it up *ONLY* on the basis that you didn't know about what Jezza had said about Iran being 'helpful' by warring in Syria.

Serious question, do you have some kind of comprehension problem? I didn't accuse you of making up anything Jezza had said, so you're still making things up, you're lying. I asked you what he'd said because I know how obsessively anti-Corbyn you are and I wondered if he'd actually said what you said he did, cos you do have a habit of telling people they're saying things they're not. You gave me a link. Yes, the writer of the article is as keen to paint Corbyn in a bad light as you are, and also overlooks and misappropriates what's said as much as you do.   

I've already said this but I'll say it again, Corbyn talks about Iran helping to bring about a chemical weapons agreement with the Syrian government and working towards Geneva II. He doesn't say Iran bombing Syria is great, so don't pretend that he does. 

But most of all, please stop lying. I don't know why it's so difficult to you to resist telling people that they've said things they haven't. On a forum like this, it's so easy for people to prove that they haven't said what you're accusing them of. It's a piss poor way of debating.

[Trout Mask Replica]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's a self selecting poll, for christ's sakes. It's like going into a cake shop and finding out everyone inside loves cake.

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. 

I never said it was a reliable poll. I'd be interested to know which you consider to be most reliable. Haven't so many been found to be unreliable?

I do keep an eye on messages momentum and others put out but don't recall seeing that missive to put a tenner on Corbyn. Have you got a link to it, just out of interest? 

Thanks

[RichardWaller]

10 hours ago, Trout Mask Replica said:

ITV are running a poll which shows Corbyn at 65% and May at 24% with 115k votes cast. Now I know this isn't a proper poll but it certainly doesn't fit the narrative we're getting from the beeb and mainstream press. 

Maybe pop by and give it a vote, whatever your preference if only for the sake of balance. 

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/hot-topics/poll-who-do-you-want-to-be-the-next-prime-minister

Never took part in a proper poll myself, and I'm not sure I know anyone who has.. 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. Course, depending on your outlook, you can pick and choose which polls you think are relevant.

9 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

We don't live In a dictatorship, the PM doesn't decide everything themselves, the party as a whole does and that is determined by its ideology, its donors and a myriad of other factors. The PM (or leader of the opposition) is a figurehead and is there to drive their parties policies through, make them seem credible and to generally inspire confidence in them and their party.

Corbyns lack of personality and charisma (to name just a few of his faults) are massive issues regardless of how good or bad his or his parties policies are, because with him in charge they will never cut through to the general public. Like it or not charisma and personality are vitally important at base level to us human beings, it's why I'm not an actor but Brad Pitt is, it's why we are persuaded to or choose to buy the things we buy.

Thats why you need a happy medium, whoever is charge of the Labour Party won't be running around like a mad despot imposing their own individual desires on the country, but they have to be palatable to the general public for their parties policies to be taken seriously.

Got mixed feelings about the personality and charisma stuff... Alright, I don't expect to be voting for someone with the personality and charisma of David Bowie cos, despite how some politicians might try to be, they're not entertainers. I appreciate that people do value personality and charisma, but am also confused that this guy got the most votes of any British PM ever

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

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

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

That is, until a poll comes out which they think shows Jezza in a good light, when they'll reference that poll constantly. It's laughable.

Opinion polls are broadly accurate, and have been for every election for 25+ years, but this time they're wrong?

It's a desperate take, and as desperate as momentum manipulating the bookies odds.

Edited April 21, 2017 by eFestivals

[RichardWaller]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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

That is, until a poll comes out which they think shows Jezza in a good light, when they'll reference that poll constantly. It's laughable.

Opinion polls are broadly accurate, and have been for every election for 25+ years, but this time they're wrong?

It's a desperate take, and as desperate as momentum manipulating the bookies odds.

I think I'm gonna have to start every reply to you with stop making things up.

I'm fuck all to do with Momentum, I didn't say all polls are lies, stop lying. I said there are going to be results all over the place. Which is true. Point in question, this one.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Got mixed feelings about the personality and charisma stuff... Alright, I don't expect to be voting for someone with the personality and charisma of David Bowie cos, despite how some politicians might try to be, they're not entertainers. I appreciate that people do value personality and charisma, but am also confused that this guy got the most votes of any British PM ever

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.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, RichardWaller said:

I think I'm gonna have to start every reply to you with stop making things up.

I'm fuck all to do with Momentum, I didn't say all polls are lies, stop lying. I said there are going to be results all over the place. Which is true. Point in question, this one.

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

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.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

I'm fuck all to do with Momentum

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.

 

[simian_mobile_mushrooms]

On a side note, does anyone know a good website where you can check all of the main parties' policies side by side for example? It's a bit of a minefield when you're not following the news day to day or reading the politics section all the time. I'd quite like to just look at what they'd do for the country and go from there

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, simian_mobile_mushrooms said:

On a side note, does anyone know a good website where you can check all of the main parties' policies side by side for example? It's a bit of a minefield when you're not following the news day to day or reading the politics section all the time. I'd quite like to just look at what they'd do for the country and go from there

I don't, but I was just reading Jezza's 10 pledges...

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/10-pledges

All very worthy, tho much easier to say than achieve - especially when there's a commitment to full employment and jezza has previously said free movement would stay as it is. It ends up as a job offer to everyone in Europe. 

[Waapster]

18 minutes ago, simian_mobile_mushrooms said:

On a side note, does anyone know a good website where you can check all of the main parties' policies side by side for example? It's a bit of a minefield when you're not following the news day to day or reading the politics section all the time. I'd quite like to just look at what they'd do for the country and go from there

I expect most UK news websites will do this once all the manifestos are available - perhaps by mid-week next week.