[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 80531)
Message
File  []
close
bn_bean_comp1.jpg
805318053180531
>> No. 80531 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 11:01 am
80531 Corbyn Mk III: Electric Boogaloo
I think it's time for a new Corbyn thread.

The previous thread (>>73072) is reaching critical mass. In combination with the original thread (>>64990) we've had over 4,700 posts on Dear Leader since August last year. That's a lot of shitposting. Keep up the good work, lads.
946 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 82237 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 2:34 pm
82237 spacer
>>82232
She doesn't come across as feeling well and hasn't for quite a while. I'm slightly worried for her.
If it does come out she's ill, I'd quite like for their to be suitable public reproach for those who jumped on it, though I won't hold my breath. (And if it doesn't, well, no loss to me. Good for her.)

It's not that I'm a Corbynite, although it does come from spending too much time on the left: The increasing vacuousness of politics under post-1980 capitalism has started to drive me nuts. Even as things get worse and worse, the air of boredom doesn't go away. I thought Trump might cut through, but what can I say - the spectacle got me to try and kick the football again. I am Charlie (Gordon) Brown.
Say what you want about Thatcher, at least she actually gave the impression of being political, christ, even Blair was better than this. And the decline is accelerating. By 2023 we'll have a choice between a freshly painted wall and a freshly painted wall with a fucking POUM badge.

NURSE, GET MY BOOK ON WILSON OR SO HELP ME I'LL PISS IN THE BED AGAIN!
>> No. 82238 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 4:17 pm
82238 spacer
>>82237 If it does come out she's ill, I'd quite like for their to be suitable public reproach for those who jumped on it

Wait, what?
In the same way that I don't approve of people with a cold passing it round the office, I don't approve of people with brain damage running my country.
I'm probably a heartless bastard, though. And she's probably just as thick as she's always been.
>> No. 82239 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 8:41 pm
82239 spacer
>>82235
Then why is it a major mistake to say the wrong thing in one?
>> No. 82240 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 8:48 pm
82240 spacer
>>82239
It has turned out that in the other interviews before that one she wasn't asked to actually provide figures and the costing.

She's the Shadow Home Secretary. There's a general election next month. A little preparation and professionalism isn't much to ask.
>> No. 82241 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 8:56 pm
82241 spacer
>>82240
Is that based on actual evidence or is it Daily Mail Facts again?
>> No. 82242 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 8:56 pm
82242 spacer
>>82240
'Turned out', has it? Source?
>> No. 82243 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 9:46 pm
82243 spacer

ELECTION_LEAFLET_DN02-1068x801.jpg
822438224382243
>>82241>>82242
Jo Coburn mentioned it when she interviewed her during the Daily Politics. The Telegraph have reported that the figures were brought up for the first time during the LBC interview.

>Abbott repeats the claim that she had previously got the figures correct, but this doesn't appear to be the case as they did not come up in other interviews and were not mentioned in a press released about the announcement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/diane-abbotts-car-crash-tv-radio-interviews-labours-policing/

Sky News have also said she struggled during their interview with her.

>Mrs Abbott insisted she "misspoke" and said she was "completely on top of her brief". She said she had done seven interviewed and had only stumbled on one. However, it came after Mrs Abbott also struggled with questions over funding the policy in an interview on Sky News.

http://news.sky.com/story/labour-promises-10000-more-bobbies-on-the-beat-10859910

Face it, lads. Diane Abbott is absolutely fucking useless.
>> No. 82244 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 10:01 pm
82244 spacer
>>82243
Nobody disputes that she's useless, but if one is going to attack her for getting her facts wrong ...
>> No. 82245 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 10:29 pm
82245 spacer
>>82243

>Mrs Abbott insisted she "misspoke"

I swear she says this after every other national media appearance.
>> No. 82246 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 11:38 pm
82246 spacer
>>82243
Opposed to unstainable houses? Bought and paid for by Unilever, no doubt.
>> No. 82282 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 9:59 pm
82282 spacer
I genuinely think that she might have dementia.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPb5guPZr6M
>> No. 82283 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:03 pm
82283 spacer
>>82282
That's just the mental faculties of your typical public service worker, especially those in local government.
>> No. 82284 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:13 pm
82284 spacer
>>82282 I genuinely think that she might have dementia.

You know those baffling lessons you had as a small child, where they were continuously explaining numbers, and number lines, and negative numbers being smaller than positive numbers, despite it being obvious after the first run through?
They were aimed at this innumerate and her like. She never understood, and never will. Numbers are a fucking mystery to her, there's no logic to them.
This would be (relatively) fine, if they weren't what her career depends on.
Christ, I'm saddened by these interviews. Roll her out for a party conscience, if you must, but protect her with someone who actually has some grasp of numbers.
>> No. 82285 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:15 pm
82285 spacer
Edit: Her career clearly hasn't depended on her competence with numbers. Sorry.
>> No. 82286 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:20 pm
82286 spacer
>Labour is pledging not to raise income tax for those earning less than £80,000 a year as part of a "personal tax guarantee" for 95% of taxpayers.

>Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell will vow to protect low and middle earners by also ruling out rises in VAT and employee national insurance rates. But he will say the top 5% of earners will pay more to fund public services.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39829723

How noble of John McDonnell, pledging to raise income tax for those earning £6,000 more than the base MP salary so he shouldn't be affected by it.
>> No. 82288 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:24 pm
82288 spacer
>>82286
>more than the base MP salary so he shouldn't be affected by it
You'd have a point were he on the base MP salary.
>> No. 82289 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:33 pm
82289 spacer
>>82288
What's his salary, then? I can only see the one he published last year, which was around 10% lower than the base salary due to being able to claim higher rate tax relief on pension contributions.
>> No. 82290 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:41 pm
82290 spacer
>>82289
As a shadow minister, does he not get a shadow-ministerial uplift? He certainly gets a better pension than backbenchers.
>> No. 82292 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:45 pm
82292 spacer
>>82286
>£80,000 a year
>£6,000 more than the base MP salary
I'm not sure whether to take tax criticism seriously from someone who can't do basic arithmetic.
>> No. 82293 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 10:52 pm
82293 spacer

Dalekski.jpg
822938229382293
Comrade Corbynski is involved with Russian Dalek engineering space terror.
>> No. 82294 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 11:11 pm
82294 spacer
>>82289
You're forgetting the sixty-something grand in ministerial salary that comes with being Chancellor.

>>82290
If he's in a position to put it into effect, there's no "shadow" about it.
>> No. 82295 Anonymous
6th May 2017
Saturday 11:39 pm
82295 spacer
>>82294
So in this fantasy world where Labour win the election and Johnny Mac becomes chancellor, he earns £74962 basic plus $67505 extra for being in the Cabinet. I can't be bothered to actually do the maths but I have a sneaking suspicion that the total might be ever so slightly over £80k.
>> No. 82296 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 12:02 am
82296 spacer

dsfffffffffd.png
822968229682296
We're winning.

You're losing. Really, really badly.
>> No. 82297 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 12:21 am
82297 spacer

Mi 24 Hind 7.jpg
822978229782297
>>82293

I think the spectacle of Corbyn strafing the Houses of Parliament in a Hind would be worth the nightmarish carnage. Got those 80mm rocket pods, nose cannon blaring, his last eight loyal MPs deploying from within, armed to the teeth with the finest Soviet small arms Labour membership fees can buy.
>> No. 82298 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 12:22 am
82298 spacer
>>82296

I didn't know NAMBLA had won any council seats?
>> No. 82299 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 12:47 am
82299 spacer
>>82298
Picked up two seats from the 'Kip.
>> No. 82300 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 12:54 am
82300 spacer
>>82298

That is the shit. I read the Guardian too. For real.
>> No. 82301 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 1:18 am
82301 spacer
>>82300
u wot m8?
>> No. 82302 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 1:30 am
82302 spacer

concorde-about.jpg
823028230282302
>>82301

Concorde was invented by aliens.

Keep up lad
>> No. 82303 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 1:36 am
82303 spacer

Kim-Jong-Un.jpg
823038230382303
Herro Jelemy

I velly annoyed you no make cunry Marsist.

If you no win, I send big nukleah missah to Isrington.
>> No. 82304 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 1:59 am
82304 spacer
>>82297

You just know that Corbyn would ditch it in the Thames and have to be be rescued by the RNLI.

As the blood and river water drip from his beard, he tells Sky News that the bloody coup had actually been a great success, reflecting Labour's progressive attitude towards attack helicopters that sexually identify as submarines. Diane Abbott tells the BBC that the attack only cost 38p and 400 Tesco Clubcard points and shows Labour's commitment to working class voters. A Momentum activist says that the half-submerged wreckage is just a lie made up by the Murdoch press and accuses the helicopter's guidance system of being a Blairite wrecker.
>> No. 82305 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 2:36 am
82305 spacer

C-7aUhjWAAItvOV.jpg
823058230582305

>> No. 82307 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 4:28 am
82307 spacer
>>82304

Well, to be fair, Hinds are notoriously difficult aircraft to handle.
>> No. 82308 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 7:35 am
82308 spacer
>>82304

You watch too much Have I Got News For You.
>> No. 82309 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 8:38 am
82309 spacer
>>82303
When did casual dolphin rape become acceptable around these parts?
>> No. 82310 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 8:55 am
82310 spacer
>>82309
North Korea doesn't count.
>> No. 82311 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 1:16 pm
82311 spacer
>>82309
It's what happens after chucking out time at the SU. Just think of .gs being a werewolf and once a week it loses its mind.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CWTa0x1lDs
>> No. 82343 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:04 am
82343 spacer
Jeremy Corbyn has said he will not stand down as Labour leader if the party loses the election.

The veteran MP, who has already survived one attempt to overthrow him during his 20 month-tenure as leader, said he intends to remain in his post even if the party is thrashed in the poll on 8 June.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-not-quit-labour-election-loss-win-general-vote-a7725311.html

JEREMY, YES.
>> No. 82350 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 1:13 pm
82350 spacer
>>82343

He has also thrown away Labours only chance at getting anywhere near power. Any leftist would be assassins you now have your mission.
>> No. 82355 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 4:02 pm
82355 spacer
>>82350
Are you suggesting that had Corbyn promised to step down following a loss people will be more likely to vote labour?

There is a reason politicians don't say they will stand down after an election, it turns the vote into one centering on an individual. Hence why Cameron said he really wouldn't step down after the referendum but then did.
>> No. 82356 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 4:26 pm
82356 spacer
>>82355
I think he's suggesting that having a ham sandwich as leader would make people more likely to vote Labour. The polls are unambiguous in this respect - people like the policies but don't like the leader.
>> No. 82358 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 5:29 pm
82358 spacer

e45ee3a12c3ef17806bf33d79f893606.jpg
823588235882358
>>82356
>I think he's suggesting that having a ham sandwich as leader would make people more likely to vote Labour.

In fairness I think 'hammy' could give anyone a run for their money. Even better if he comes in a pre-sandwich form as one of those adorable micro-pigs. I'd like to see those EU negotiators squirm as on his first day he chews up the Lisbon Treaty and wanders off into another room in search of truffles.

Er...anyway, yes Corbyn is unpopular. Therefore him coming out and saying 'I will leave if you don't vote labour' wouldn't be a very good position for the party to take. Was >>82350 just echoing a common opinion for no real reason, perhaps to fit in?
>> No. 82359 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 5:51 pm
82359 spacer
>>82358
>Corbyn is unpopular. Therefore him coming out and saying 'I will leave if you don't vote labour' wouldn't be a very good position for the party to take
I never thought of it like that. So we can, in fact, expect his resignation post-election?
>> No. 82363 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 6:06 pm
82363 spacer

C_Y10AhXYAAsIUw.jpg
823638236382363
For fuck's sake Jeremy. Don't refuse six or seven times to directly answer whether Britain would definitely leave the EU if Labour got in.

There's too many reasons he's electoral kryptonite:-

• His links to the IRA

• His friends in Hamas.

• Saying that shoot to kill should only be used in exceptional circumstances, whilst making it sound like a terrorist attack in Britain wouldn't be one of those scenarios.

• Saying we should open a dialogue with Argentina about the sovereignty of the Falklands.

• Fixating on the hugely polarising issue of Trident and then coming up with the ridiculous suggestion of building the specialised nuclear subs to preserve jobs but without putting nukes on them.

• Unlimited benefits.

• Unlimited immigration.

• Surrounding himself with cronies such as McDonnell and Abbott, further evidenced by giving the Liverpool Walton MP candidacy to one of Len's mates.

• Wanting to pull out of NATO.

• The whole anti-Semitism whitewash followed by the peerage for Shami.

• The constant dithering and lack of clarity.

There's far too many deal breakers and these are just the ones I've thought of whilst taking a dump.
>> No. 82366 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 6:45 pm
82366 spacer
>>82359
I dunno, probably. When you lose an election it is custom that you fall on your sword e.g. Cameron.

>>82363
>Unlimited benefits.

I hate this bollocks that people like you are stuck on. The government has now used it as an excuse to actively punish people for having more than two children i.e. meeting the replacement level which only makes me think that maybe Otherplace/Livingstone is right about the Jewish menace.

Why would a government do this with the situation we're in without some nefarious plot to destroy the country? It's madness.
>> No. 82369 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:18 pm
82369 spacer
>>82366
>The government has now used it as an excuse to actively punish people for having more than two children

Punished? Receiving less of a handout solely for squeezing out children is hardly a punishment. Less of a reward =/= a punishment.

The ceasement of child benefit for having more than two children was well publicised and, at the time of the announcement, would only impact on children who hadn't even been conceived yet. The overwhelming majority of people in this country resent slaving away and paying taxes to fund the lifestyles of those who want to laze around and squeeze out numerous kids, funded by the state.

Unlimited benefits is not a vote winner. If the decision to have three or more children rests on whether you'll receive child benefit for them then you really shouldn't breed.
>> No. 82370 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:34 pm
82370 spacer
>>82369
Cancer.
>> No. 82373 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:56 pm
82373 spacer
>>82369
>Punished? Receiving less of a handout solely for squeezing out children is hardly a punishment. Less of a reward =/= a punishment.

They are punished because they lose their right to something on account of having too many babies. The concept of punishment does not just include a visit to prison as any child who has not been allowed ice cream will tell you.

>The overwhelming majority of people in this country resent slaving away and paying taxes to fund the lifestyles of those who want to laze around and squeeze out numerous kids, funded by the state.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country also (I would hazard) believe that child poverty is a serious issue and that every child has a right to a good upbringing. Hence all those laws and stuff we have.

Anyway, it is a dumb rule brought about by simple minded people like yourself. Children are a good investment for a society as they grow up, pay taxes, fight wars and generally mean that the society continues 25 years down the line. If we accept that layabout parents are a problem then why set it at 2 when it is such an obviously unstable number for the state to encourage and why should child benefit be the way to target such people. Certainly the biggest losers will be the children themselves when the more sensible option would be to provide free childcare so the layabouts have no excuse to sit at home.

>If the decision to have three or more children rests on whether you'll receive child benefit for them then you really shouldn't breed.

This comes under nudge theory which is something the government makes use of. By capping benefits at 2 the state is indirectly informing you that family size should be limited to 2 just as sin taxes are a way of nudging you away from behaviour ruled as bad.
>> No. 82385 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 4:15 pm
82385 spacer
>>82369

Well, you should hope they don't bring out a tax for any adjectives after your first two.

You have a big problem with the poster using the term 'punished', you then go on to use both too much exaggeration and too many adjectives (your point doesn't need flowery language). While at the same time;

>The overwhelming majority of people in this country resent slaving away

No one 'slaves away', this useless rhetoric is beyond ignorant. Even 'working hard' would have been an exaggeration, but this, this is a folly. Indeed, 'punished' might be ill-used, and your tactic was to mimic the very behavior that you were set against? Christ, it's almost like centring yourself on what you're against comes to define you.

If fed a different meal, the 'overwhelming majority' would praise those who leech off the state, and would think it unfair that a select few rich men take a majority of the benefits, leaving us to fight amongst ourselves for the scraps.

>>82373

Just to add to your sentiment;

You have to earn enough money to have support for more than two children. You have to earn enough money to have the right to have a foreign-born spouse move here to live with you. You have to earn enough money to benefit from a help-to-buy scheme. You have to earn enough money to be a property guardian (and thus save money on rent).

One of the fundamental problems is the lack of hope, the lack of opportunity, which is literally blanketing England.
>> No. 82416 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 4:12 pm
82416 spacer
>>82369
>The overwhelming majority of people in this country resent slaving away and paying taxes to fund the lifestyles of those who want to laze around and squeeze out numerous kids, funded by the state.
Then maybe they should stop being dumb shits and learn some functional finance.

Or have kids. If it's so easy, I mean. You're basically getting paid to have sex! With people who (probably) aren't sweaty truckers with 15 STDs!

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password