Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I love this I really do much of the above is opinion not fact

Corbyn doesn't have marginal views at odds with much of the country? :lol:

Corbyn didn't have shit appeal for 2 years, the worst of any Labour leader ever?

Corbyn didn't undermine his own shadow ministers (which still hasn't ended)? :lol:

Corbyn didn't fuck up his own relaunch?

Corbyn didn't lie about his own deputy's complaint? :lol:

The only one that might be regarded as 'opinion' are the manifesto costings ... tho only one independent org has looked at those costings, and they much agree with me. 
(I'll point out: I raised those issues before they published their take of it)

 

 

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

and the first 3 cannot be correct because if they were then labour would have indeed been wiped out!

No.

If Corbyn always had that fantastic support he *MUST* have had a mediocre campaign that gained him no extra support.

 

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

that didnt happen! because people backed the man!

something which only changed in the last 6 weeks. :rolleyes:

 

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

what do you think they fucking sprung up overnight all these backers?

Yes.

Want to show me some better facts to support your view than I can provide in support of my own?
(which is 2 years of polling that shows him with low support).

 

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

or could it just be he had pleanty of support all along just many refused to believe it until they had no choice last weekend!

That's a view, but if that's your view his campaign was so poor it made no difference to his support.

 

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

but no hes a shit leader, he really is, masterminded the biggest political recovery and swing in decades but no hes clearly shit isnt he?

He's much improved.

But it doesn't mean he was never shit.

 

9 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

this is what I mean by deluded pal you really fucking are so dont try and talk down to me as per the norm when you talk such bollocks yourself eh? 

The deluded are the fact-rejecters.

:waves:

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

months and months of it?

months and months of me being critical of months and months - 2 whole years - of Corbyn being shit.

 

12 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

everytime the topic came up? no mate thats an agenda right there,

Yep, an agenda of wanting a successful Labour party.

You know, something which no one sane believed until 10pm last Thursday.

 

12 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

this guy presents himself as this all knowing all wise political mouthpeace when all he does is corbyn did this corbyn did that blah blah fucking blah.

No, not all knowing. Just someone who references facts rather than goes with fantasies.

 

12 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Id have much more respect for the guy if he just came out and admitted he had a problem with the guy rather then pulling the `id like him to win but` bullshit all the time making excuses and making arguments up. hers just a bit bitter as well as all his bullshit about corbyn being a hopeless case was proved wrong last weekend so all I can say is ha! but enough of this crap if he wants to play mr negative mr tory in disguise all the time then fuck it, time to just let the baby have his bottle lol you go ahead mate you belive whatever you want to believe itll be all the more fun when your proved wrong again when the tories/dup collapse soonish

Care to tell me how come Corbyn fucked up his own relaunch if he wasn't shit? :rolleyes:

He fucked it so much that it then got cancelled.

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

because its quite normal to do nothing but fling mud for months at someone you like......lol

It's quite normal to say that shit is shit.

Go on, tell me how Corbyn wasn't so very shit that he didn't fuck-up his own relaunch.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Oh? so tell me what other choice we have as far as people to lead the country over the next few years? its labour or the tories those are your choices. Simple really. Or perhaps you believe tim farron can make a shock resurgence and outdo them both? lol

 

Labour and the tories are the choice.

But just like people are now pointing out that May is not the only tory, I'll point out that Corbyn's is not the only Labour view.

[Homer]

Tory insider quoted anonymously in the Sunday Times. Summary: We will get a sh1t deal from Brexit now, the country will blame us for the whole thing, and we will be wiped out in the subsequent election.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Homer said:

Tory insider quoted anonymously in the Sunday Times. Summary: We will get a sh1t deal from Brexit now, the country will blame us for the whole thing, and we will be wiped out in the subsequent election.

which might mean they decide that handing the whole shitty stick to Labour is the best thing to do, so that Labour are stuck with getting a shit brexit deal and get blamed for th4e whole thing and will be wiped out in a subsequent election.

Labour need to play it well, and carefully. The tories are in the place where they have the power to shaft Labour with all these troubles.

[Homer]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

which might mean they decide that handing the whole shitty stick to Labour is the best thing to do, so that Labour are stuck with getting a shit brexit deal and get blamed for th4e whole thing and will be wiped out in a subsequent election.

Labour need to play it well, and carefully. The tories are in the place where they have the power to shaft Labour with all these troubles.

Well, it was DC who accidentally took us out of the EU originally. Although people, I guess, are a bit thick and prone to forgetting these small details....

[Duncan Doughnuts]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

That's it. You're either the full Corbyn or you're a tory. There is no other way.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Homer said:

Well, it was DC who accidentally took us out of the EU originally. Although people, I guess, are a bit thick and prone to forgetting these small details....

yep, but we are where we are.

What matters is where we go to, and with all brexit options being worse economically for the UK than where we are currently, there's as much scope for tories or Labour - whoever does it - to be branded as the ones who got a bad deal. Remember, it's Labour's own choice to pursue brexit, it's not something they *have* to do.

Despite my own wants of remain I reckon Corbyn made the right call of backing brexit off the back of the EUref vote, but i also think that with another vote (the GE) there was the option to present something different.

Again - electorally, for the GE - I think backing brexit was the right call (despite my own  different wants), but that does mean they own it as much as the tories do currently, if Labour are then the ones who take the process thru to completion.

At any moment the tories could call a GE and drop it all onto Labour, and things don't necessarily work out well for Labour from there. They'd be the ones carrying the shitty stick, not the tories.

I don't know what the right answer is for Labour, but they do need to be careful. The tories are the ones with most control for what happens next.

[HalfAnIdiot]

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the 'trouble' about the brexit negotiations exists in the HoC and nowhere else - because any negotiating that can't be put thru the HoC might as well be no negotiation.

Again you are being naive as to the process of negotiation and the importance of personal credibility.

[Duncan Doughnuts]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

At any moment the tories could call a GE and drop it all onto Labour, and things don't necessarily work out well for Labour from there. They'd be the ones carrying the shitty stick, not the tories.

Do you really think that the 'power crazy, hang in there at all costs' Tory party will relinquish government..........I can't see a GE for 5 years. Although the next five years will see Tory infighting that'll make the John Major years seem like a walk in the park!!!

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

Again you are being naive as to the process of negotiation and the importance of personal credibility.

but the personal credibility always comes back to the power wielded by that person, their ability to deliver what is negotiated.

If Britain and France agree something, no one in Britain is thinking about the personal power situation of the French representative. They're only thinking about the ability of France as a nation to sign up to and implement within their parliament to what that representative agreed with the UK.

Edited June 12, 2017 by eFestivals

[___S_o_m_a__]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

Can we agree to disagree now and call it quits... we could go round and round and get nowhere 

[babyblade41]

Just now, ___S_o_m_a__ said:

I am ...does it show ????

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Duncan Doughnuts said:

Do you really think that the 'power crazy, hang in there at all costs' Tory party will relinquish government.

I think it's unlikely. I've been making that 'unlikely' point back to those people who think May is going to jack it all in this week or in a month or two, or whenever.

But it doesn't mean it can't happen. There can be worse things for the tory party than relinquishing power right now, such as doing a deal which might blacken them for decades.

 

Quote

.........I can't see a GE for 5 years. Although the next five years will see Tory infighting that'll make the John Major years seem like a walk in the park!!!

People have been talking about that tory infighting since the ref was confirmed, since it was called, since it was voted for, and it's not happened yet. 

There's a bit of fuss at the mo because May fucked up an open goal. That's a temporary thing.

Brexit is an ongoing thing, and one where the tories get none of what they might want from brexit if they hand it over to Labour, or can't agree a compromise between themselves. As such, I think they'll mostly agree something between themselves and get some of what they want, rather than lose control of the process altogether.

Tho, like i say, they might decide its so very toxic that they'd rather Labour had that poison.

Whatever happens, it's them who decide what happens. Not Labour.

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by eFestivals

[frostypaw]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

95% of people were promised a freebie. Fact!

I can't get this new editor to close quotes so I can reply to points neatly :/

Not fact - misrepresentation. They were promised no rise in personal taxation, there were rises and changes elsewhere. Then you get all aggro about it which rather stymies any point in continuing that line - if you wanna talk about it and not just get otherwise friendly folk's back up then launching straight into such accusatory tones won't get there. As you say though you'd said it before, I just don't agree with it all.

They were fools if it was a surprise to them - the campaign was the first time most people actually heard the policies. Before that there was plentiful evidence that people liked the policies until they heard they were from Corbyn and after the year+ of abuse with virtually no mention of the policies his name had been made toxic. Once the policies were out there the graphs shifted dramatically. It's right there to be seen by anyone how things changed - that wasn't a magic spell that happened.... it was the PLP shutting up and people getting to actually hear what was being proposed. Plenty of research was done into how few articles actually covered policy before that - it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that he got nowhere.

If they'd supported him earlier that trend would have started earlier and we would have been in a different position today - it still would have been a struggle with how negative much of the press was, but much less of one. As it stands they ruined any point anyone might want to make about him being unelectable. If I just watered a plant with bleach for a month and it failed to grow until I started giving it fertiliser it doesn't make the plant a dud, it just means it doesn't like bleach - my poisoning of it's growth destroyed that data, all you know is that it was being poisoned.

[Mozzer79]

It was an election win for the Tories and 2nd place for Labour BUT it was a defeat politically for May and a resounding win for Corbyn.

The reason being that the turnaround of political momentum has been huge!

May has gone from a free reign on a hard Brexit, with a divided party held together by the comfort of their unthreatened power, to now being tethered to soft Brexit, exposed as unpopular within her own ranks, and fearful of Corbyn.

Corbyn has gone from unelectable, not credible, hated by fellow shadow ministers, to a party leader with momentum, legitimacy, a popular manifesto and support from a much broader population within the party. 

I mean, even Tories are complimenting Corbyn's campaign and the likes of Eagle, Umunna and Watson are singing his praises. That was unimaginable a few weeks ago.

What further cements Corbyn's victory is that he is not only guaranteed to stay in situ til the next election, but has comfortably survived every true and false criticism that has been slung his way by both the Tories and the media could muster.

The Tories thought that they could put Corbyn to the sword by winning the propaganda war. But next time, Lynton Crosby, Paul Dacre, Rupert Murdoch and all the other players in the anti-socialism elite will have to reconsider their approach. 

Calling Corbyn a 'Terrorist Sympathising Britain-Hater', barely made a dent this time rounds so what chance of the same strategy having value next time?

Bizarrely, any Tory would fret at the prospect of taking Corbyn on in another GE. 

That's why it's a victory for Corbyn.

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Until 6 weeks ago Corbyn *HAD* done fuck all.
Until 6 weeks ago he *WAS* a vote loser.
Until 6 weeks ago *everyone* thought they were going to get spanked.

And even on election day? All the posts here - including from those who said they'd voted for him as leader - were that labour were going to get spanked.

I'm not sure we can assume those first two, actually. The prevailing notion appears to be that Corbyn was awful and gained tons of ground during the campaign. While I'm sure he gained some, the fact that all bar one of the polls was wrong suggests that most of those polls were likely also wrong for the past two years. And just because a single polling agency in YouGov got the result correct in the election, we can't assume they got there through judgment rather than just blind luck - it doesn't mean their pre-election polls were therefore definitely accurate either.

There's a decent chance Corbyn was gaining votes in that entire two year period, we just never saw it.

[zahidf]

Good from the newstatesman

[frostypaw]

The polls were probably right all along - you just gotta be careful how you read them. Look at this graph collating the results:

Just extrapolate the end of those lines a bit and you end up where we ended up. They were pretty good. It's not that people had already decided their vote and slowly started to tell the pollsters it, they just finally got a chance to listen and liked what they heard.

It just took an election being called to end the backstabbing. People if anything underestimate how much damage that was doing - and isn't it more believable that people were mistaken on just that point rather than on everything?

Edited June 12, 2017 by frostypaw

[DeanoL]

Yeah but didn't the election calling lead to a change in how the polling actually took place, and a massive increase in the amount actually done? 

[frostypaw]

Definitely - you can see all the extra scatter dots afterwards - but that alone shouldn't change the results to that extent and it's extremely unlikely the same people got polled repeatedly so there's no post-nudge research effect to consider.

If someone had the time and inclination it'd be really interesting to map out on that graph where the various betrayals/coups/news revelations took place.

The post-election polling is interesting too - Labour on a six point lead... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-polls-jeremy-corbyns-labour-now-have-six-point-lead-as-one-in-two-voters-say-a3562166.html

Crazy times for sure.

[eFestivals]

45 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

I can't get this new editor to close quotes so I can reply to points neatly :/

Not fact - misrepresentation. They were promised no rise in personal taxation, there were rises and changes elsewhere.

OK, am happy to go with not a fact, but only if you're happy to take that on board as a huge surprise for most that voted for him.

 

45 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

They were fools if it was a surprise to them - the campaign was the first time most people actually heard the policies.

But they weren't policies before then. They were a wishlist of nice things, where anything that was asked of Corbyn he said yes to.

Otherwise, benefit rises would be in the manifesto, and they weren't.

 

45 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

Before that there was plentiful evidence that people liked the policies until they heard they were from Corbyn and after the year+ of abuse with virtually no mention of the policies his name had been made toxic.

More to the point, his name was 'toxic'* before he ever got to be leader. 

(* an over-statement, but you used the word).

Simple fact is that all standard political thinking showed him as 'toxic'. The PLP (and me) might have called it wrong, but they weren't calling it wrong for no reason or bad reason.

And in 2 years of extremely shit leadership - which was only Corbyn's own doing (no one else made him undermine his shadow cabinet, for example, or for him to fluff his own relaunch so badly it had to be cancelled a few days in) -  and that starting view held up strongly.

The PLP (and me) are happy to admit we got it wrong. Similarly Corbyn supporters need to recognise that those who opposed him were doing it for very good reasons on a good political basis - AND for what they saw as best for the party.

 

45 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

Once the policies were out there the graphs shifted dramatically.

The policies that arrived just 6 weeks ago. It was *only* with the arrival of the real policies 6 weeks ago that things changed.

(plus so very very major fuck ups from May. Without those fuck ups from May things still might be different for Jez).

 

45 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

It's right there to be seen by anyone how things changed - that wasn't a magic spell that happened.... it was the PLP shutting up and people getting to actually hear what was being proposed.

As well as stuff like Corbyn *finally* engaging with the media to get stuff across.

2 years of fucking off the media by Jez played its part too, including causing them to fill the space he wouldn't help them fill with other stuff.

 

45 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

Plenty of research was done into how few articles actually covered policy before that - it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that he got nowhere.

And plenty of Jez causing those few articles, too.

 

45 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

If they'd supported him earlier that trend would have started earlier and we would have been in a different position today

Perhaps.

Just as without two years of shitness from Jez things might have changed earlier.

Or was Jez so perfect that nothing of what I've listed (in other posts) happened?

It's not the one sided thing that you've suggested in the words you gave here.

Just as a costed manifesto isn't necessarily beyond all fair comment - and I can give you reams of fair comment about that, if you're not doing only-biased.

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

The polls were probably right all along - you just gotta be careful how you read them. Look at this graph collating the results:

Just extrapolate the end of those lines a bit and you end up where we ended up. They were pretty good. It's not that people had already decided their vote and slowly started to tell the pollsters it, they just finally got a chance to listen and liked what they heard.

It just took an election being called to end the backstabbing. People if anything underestimate how much damage that was doing - and isn't it more believable that people were mistaken on just that point rather than on everything?

there was no brexit vote to cause UKIP's collapse to change all polling patterns?

There were no Tory budget fuck-ups to cause the high points?

There was no Jez going against agreed Labour policy (a crime only he committed)?

There was no half-hearted brexit campaign with a Jez holiday in the middle of it?

There was no undermining his own mjinsters (which even continued after the manifesto launch, where Jez and Thornberry went off-piste)?

There was no Jez boycotting the media for him to fail to get his message across?

There was no very badly fucked up 'relaunch' where he couldn't even say what the policies were?

It was not only 'backstabbing'. There was 2 years of VERY-shit Jez.

Perfection for Jez can only be claimed by re-writing history.

 

[eFestivals]

40 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'm not sure we can assume those first two, actually. The prevailing notion appears to be that Corbyn was awful and gained tons of ground during the campaign. While I'm sure he gained some, the fact that all bar one of the polls was wrong suggests that most of those polls were likely also wrong for the past two years.

All the polls were ball-park right with vote share.  Or were the polls lying with UKIP support, too, despite the poll numbers being about right for the support they got in votes? Etc etc etc.

And there was never any shit-Jez?

 

40 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And just because a single polling agency in YouGov got the result correct in the election, we can't assume they got there through judgment rather than just blind luck - it doesn't mean their pre-election polls were therefore definitely accurate either.

It doesn't mean they were all wrong either.

If Jez always had that support, he had a mediocre campaign - otherwise your arguments can't stand up.

 

40 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There's a decent chance Corbyn was gaining votes in that entire two year period, we just never saw it.

And yet there's absolutely nothing-at-all to back that up, while there's loads to suggest it's crock of shit.