Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If he's within spitting distance that the "unelectable" argument has to go away then maybe he should stay

OMFG.

The 'unelectable' thing is proven if he's unelected. 

It's madness to claim that because he didn't get elected that proves he's electable.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, chatty said:

Doesnt make it any less true though. 

because funding the NHS well is a tory policy?
because Corbyn is as careerist as it's possible to be?
because funding the NHS well is a tory policy?

You'll have to tell me how it's true, I guess.

[arcade fireman]

People seem to forget Ed Miliband was called unelectable. Not as much as Corbyn, but it was certainly said - I said it myself and others said the same. A simple google search shows as much.

And so it was proven by the election result. There seems to be this notion that "unelectable" has been something people have only levelled at Corbyn. Pretty sure Hague and IDS were referred to in those terms too. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by arcade fireman

[DeanoL]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

OMFG.

The 'unelectable' thing is proven if he's unelected. 

It's madness to claim that because he didn't get elected that proves he's electable.

Yes.

If someone tells you that you'll never win a gold medal in the Olympics, and you go win a silver medal, the general response is "yeah, maybe you can win a gold medal". Not "that proves me right".

Unless, as I say, you think Corbyn ran an absolutely perfect campaign, with no slip ups, a perfect manifesto, and couldn't possibly ever do any better. Having read your posts over the past month, you seem to think the opposite of that. Which means if he comes close this time, had he done everything you'd said, he'd have won.

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

People seem to forget Ed Miliband was called unelectable. Not as much as Corbyn, but it was certainly said - I said it myself and others said the same. A simple google search shows as much.

And so it was proven by the election result. There seems to be this notion that "unelectable" has been something people have only levelled at Corbyn. Pretty sure Hague and IDS were referred to in those terms too. 

Quite the opposite. My problem is that it'll also be leveled at whoever takes over from Corbyn.

[chatty]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because funding the NHS well is a tory policy?
because Corbyn is as careerist as it's possible to be?
because funding the NHS well is a tory policy?

You'll have to tell me how it's true, I guess.

Everyone is a careerist in one regard or another if your employed. Difference is, some stand forwhat they believe in and others stand dependent on what they might gain for it 

Call Corbyn what you will and theres a load of fair reasons to call him out on but its hardly fair to say he doesnt stand for what he believes in, half the time thats been to his detriment rather than his gain. 

Was he the right man for the job? Probably not but tbh I dont think there was anybody there who was. The same old was always gonna see Labour lose ground rather than gain any. People were so disillusioned with politics from around mid 00s till recently theyd almost gave up. Milliband who was massively different to Blair/Brown got nowhere because he just gave the impression that he was another private schooled politician with no foot in the reality of those living in the lower classes. 

Whether Corbyn wins or not and whether his time as Labour leader is seen as the main reason they failed (if they do) is irrelevant to me. The difference he has made in rejuvinating and waking up a whole support group is what is the difference maker, whether Labour can make adjustments and run with that more successfully remains to be seen but you cant take that away. 

Youll have to go into more detail on the Torys/NHS well for me to answer that as Im not following it based on the post I made where I made no reference to that at all? 

Edited June 8, 2017 by chatty

[arcade fireman]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Quite the opposite. My problem is that it'll also be leveled at whoever takes over from Corbyn.

Not to nearly the same extent and not with anywhere near as much justification. 

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

So the Owen Smith strategy then? Corbyn policies with a more credible candidate?  Except not a dick like Owen Smith.

Yep. We have to pray a charismatic youngster bursts on to the scene from nowhere, someone like Macron. 

Unfortunately, it's just as likely that this person could burst onto the tory scene. Politicians on all sides are so odious at the moment that it wont take much for someone to grab the nations attention.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by russycarps

[arcade fireman]

3 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep. We have to pray a charismatic youngster bursts on to the scene from nowhere, someone like Macron. 

Unfortunately, it's just as likely that this person could burst onto the tory scene. Politicians on all sides are so odious at the moment that it wont take much for someone to grab the nations attention.

 

Someone like Macron wouldn't stand a chance with the Labour membership. Though to be fair Macron's economic policies are too far to the right. 

[Ommadawn]

Out of the 6 people in my office for which this is their first election, none of them have registered (4 didn't know they had to).
Very sad really.

[eFestivals]

50 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes.

If someone tells you that you'll never win a gold medal in the Olympics, and you go win a silver medal, the general response is "yeah, maybe you can win a gold medal". Not "that proves me right".

that's not the same at all. That's self-dependent.

Corbyn has to change the attitudes of other people - and hostile people - to step from one to the other. As i keep on pointing out, he holds too many marginal views to be able to do that. 

 

50 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Unless, as I say, you think Corbyn ran an absolutely perfect campaign, with no slip ups, a perfect manifesto, and couldn't possibly ever do any better. Having read your posts over the past month, you seem to think the opposite of that. Which means if he comes close this time, had he done everything you'd said, he'd have won.

I don't think he could have offered a better manifesto, and his supporters definitely don't think he could have. Free food, free holidays, and free money. What's not to like, unless you have doubts on whether it's really achievable?

I could suggest improvements to the campaign - like less of the vanity rallies. Corbyn clearly enjoys them and they do serve a purpose, but for those less inclined to vote labour they summon up an idea of mob rule, or mass union meetings outside Longbridge. I don't think they're attractive to the people he needs to attract.

The platform he offered was the platform his supporting members wanted for him. It's a package, not a pick and mix - to turn their own words back on them.

The point remains as it's always been, it's Corbyn himself and his baggage that's the problem. It seems like you're trying to find every way to put that to the side to give him a free pass to continue, and I don't think the unwise views that got Labour here should be the ones that also decide the future.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Quite the opposite. My problem is that it'll also be leveled at whoever takes over from Corbyn.

And like Corbyn, they'll (presumably) get the chance to prove it true or disprove it.

What they're unlikely to have is the baggage that Corbyn carries. That is one less obstacle they'll need to overcome, meaning they start off in a better place than Corbyn did.

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The point remains as it's always been, it's Corbyn himself and his baggage that's the problem. It seems like you're trying to find every way to put that to the side to give him a free pass to continue, and I don't think the unwise views that got Labour here should be the ones that also decide the future.

It's not an argument for him to continue, just not to go in a completely different direction and throw out everything he has accomplished (which has been significant).

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

And like Corbyn, they'll (presumably) get the chance to prove it true or disprove it.

What they're unlikely to have is the baggage that Corbyn carries. That is one less obstacle they'll need to overcome, meaning they start off in a better place than Corbyn did.

I guess my point is: show me a politician without baggage. 

[5co77ie]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

So the Owen Smith strategy then? Corbyn policies with a more credible candidate?  Except not a dick like Owen Smith.

All is Kier

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, 5co77ie said:

All is Kier

I don't know much about him, other than everyone says he's very clever and he has the right name to lead the Labour party.  That may well change soon.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, chatty said:

Everyone is a careerist in one regard or another if your employed. Difference is, some stand forwhat they believe in and others stand dependent on what they might gain for it 

That only works to give jezza a free-pass from careerism if jezza is the only person who might stand for what the believe in - which is a laughable idea.

 

Quote

Call Corbyn what you will and theres a load of fair reasons to call him out on but its hardly fair to say he doesnt stand for what he believes in, half the time thats been to his detriment rather than his gain. 

except of course it's what got him to be that MP in the first place. It only works in the way you're working it by picking the point in time to take your measure from to suit your wanted outcome.

 

Quote

Was he the right man for the job? Probably not but tbh I dont think there was anybody there who was.

I'm quite happy consider the question and to go with the idea that there was no obvious right person for the job.

Now, shouldn't the question also be considered from the other side? For who is the wrong person for the job? 

Kendal of the other candidates should probably go into that 'wrong' list, but jezza would have to go in there as well. 

 

Quote

The same old was always gonna see Labour lose ground rather than gain any.

Apparently it's a capital offence to say that about Corbyn with solid reasoning, but easily slipped out of your month for the other side.

And I'm yet to see a real basis for it too. It's more convenient myth than fact.

 

Quote

People were so disillusioned with politics from around mid 00s till recently theyd almost gave up. Milliband who was massively different to Blair/Brown got nowhere because he just gave the impression that he was another private schooled politician with no foot in the reality of those living in the lower classes. 

And yet Miliband's reality was no private school - that was Jezza and McD and abbott's kid - and a hell of a lot closer to 'the people' than Jezza.

People don't want a revolution. They want an NHS that works. Etc, etc, etc.

 

Quote

Youll have to go into more detail on the Torys/NHS well for me to answer that as Im not following it based on the post I made where I made no reference to that at all? 

You (essentially) said that Labour were red tories and no different to the tories.

I simply pointed at the easiest example of where they've always been distinctly different, even in the Blair years.

There's very many more too, all of which destroy that 'the same' false myth.
 

Edited June 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I guess my point is: show me a politician without baggage. 

they've all got baggage, but few have got the same baggage as Jezza, of so many things on the opposite side of mainstream public opinion, and where those things evoke strong reactions to them.

For example: there's at least one person posting in this thread who is saying they're a Labour voter, but can't vote for IRA supporting Corbyn.

You might hold the opposite view to that (I do), but surely you can recognise that someone holding that opinion isn't extreme or wacky or unreasonable or inherently tory, and that there'll be plenty who react in a similar way?

And Corbyn has a long list of things - almost-always on the marginal side of public opinion - which repel people in the same way, and not for unreasonable reasons, just different reasoning.

Others - Cooper, or Burnham, say, as they've been mentioned a lot - might have baggage, but they're unlikely to be about the sorts of subjects people have that strong reaction to, and certainly not so many on the marginal side.

Corbyn managed to get people to vote for him, but he's not really tackled the reasons why people won't vote for him.

[babyblade41]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Corbyn managed to get people to vote for him, but he's not really tackled the reasons why people won't vote for him.

the people who won't  vote for Corbyn due to the  reasons you mentioned Re: his baggage IRA links etc etc will never change their minds ...too emotive for them. it's why I think JC will only ever get near the post but never cross it 

[arcade fireman]

Queues of young people reported at a lot of polling stations. Maybe there will be a twist yet...

[OBface]

Nice tweet Neil  

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Queues of young people reported at a lot of polling stations. Maybe there will be a twist yet...

let's hope they're each voting more than once each

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[stuartbert two hats]

Can anyone remember what year the exit polls said Labour, but the Tories won? 92? Later?

[Little Andy]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

they've all got baggage, but few have got the same baggage as Jezza ...

 

 

I posted this link earlier but I'm gonna try again in response to your above comment.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/shouldnt-vote-jeremy-corbyn/

I'm still deciding who to vote for, do you have any counter arguments to the above article? Can it be taken at face value? Or is it more a matter of you agree with the statements, but still believe that Labour should be in power despite these points?

[babyblade41]

2 minutes ago, Little Andy said:

 

I posted this link earlier but I'm gonna try again in response to your above comment.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/shouldnt-vote-jeremy-corbyn/

I'm still deciding who to vote for, do you have any counter arguments to the above article? Can it be taken at face value? Or is it more a matter of you agree with the statements, but still believe that Labour should be in power despite these points?

I think that statement says it all in respect of why certain people could never vote for Corbyn... certainly I can't.

 

A lot of people will say one thing and yet when they have to do such a small thing to the ballot paper they have to listen to their conscience and can change at the last minute.

 

Some people aren't old enough to fully understand the consequences of his past as they weren't even  thought of... let alone old enough to vote which is why more of the more senior voters will still vote for tory and not give their vote to UKip or anyone else 

I know I'll get shot down by others but I'm sorry I would never trust him with the security of our shores ever ...

 

Only you can decide how you vote but find out as much as you can on each of the parties and believe what you feel not what others tell you too 

[OBface]

1 minute ago, babyblade41 said:

 

I know I'll get shot down by others but I'm sorry I would never trust him with the security of our shores ever ...

 

 

Out of interest, what are you so scared of?