- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3257 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
1246 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 80531
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.
|>>|| No. 80558
Holding onto power to piss off every cunt who couldn't handle his first mandate.
This is what you get for starting a cunt-off with a man who has nothing to lose.
|>>|| No. 80559
Exactly. Corbyn and his cult have no stake in keeping the Tories out. They're happy in the islington piles, sending their kids to private school and mouthing off at each other about how right-on they are. It's all just a joke to them, really.
|>>|| No. 80560
I can't blame them for it, honestly.
When your options are between other jokes (who can't keep the Tories out either, even if they'll poll ahead in the mid-term) and cunts who're so bad they'd leave you wondering why not just have the tories, you might as well just have fun burning the party to the ground and pissing everyone who ruined it off. They deserve it for being useless and evil, respectively.
Better to live a day as an octogenarian lion on fire than a hundred years as a Lib-Dem.
|>>|| No. 80561
What happened to you? Your hatred of the lefty metropolitan, cultural-relativist, champagne-swilling, liberal etc., etc. seems to go beyond the intellectual - it seems personal.
Did Tony Benn finger you in Leicester Square's public lav as EP Thompson watched?
|>>|| No. 80563
Perhaps they're a policy wonk upset that nobody cares about their strategic study into the implementation of a £8/hr Muh-Inimum wage (by 2020.) when they could talk about something equally unlikely to happen (Global communist revolution) that's actually fun to discuss. (I want to be the one who gets to use the testicle-shears on the DWP managers!)
|>>|| No. 80564
Oh, you're one of them too. The sort of sociopath that couldn't care less about the sort of people who depend on government help because the opposition party don't offer the ideologically pure platform that you post about on your facebook page.
I've more time for Tories than the likes of you. At least they don't have a cynical and smug 'ha ha isn't it all just a laugh' attitude.
|>>|| No. 80565
Good guess, but I'm pretty sure >>80559 is incapable of such a study. It would distract from his finger painting.
|>>|| No. 80566
>because the opposition party don't offer the ideologically pure platform that you post about on your facebook page.
No, you idiot: because the opposition party don't look like they can win anyway. It's not about being ideologically pure - if they could win on Miliband's shit Austerity-lite manifesto, I'd endorse it wholeheartedly because it would represent tangible improvement - but they can't. They lost. They lost badly.
It's not cynical and smug. It's actually utterly hopelesss: This country is evil. It actively resents the idea of the government helping those who depend on such help. It's fucked. If the country can't be changed because a majority of voters - and a majority of swing voters - actively hate the idea, you might as well have a laugh destroying the more annoying parts of party that promises change.
I feel it's probably necessary to clarify for the terminally thick that:
1. I'm not 100% serious. I'm essentially piss-taking while expressing genuine feelings.
2. I'm not a Labourite. Actually, I'm moderately left-wing. I just accept in advance that the UK isn't savable as part of the ideology of the party I actually do vote for. Labour's destruction is therefore a third-party spectator sport (and borderline foreign politics) to me.
|>>|| No. 80567
How short sighted can one arsehole get - 'it doesn't look like my sort of people could win any time soon, so I'll "have a laugh destroying parts of a party that annoy me". You're deluded and a prick.
|>>|| No. 80569
It would have been better. I don't know how much better, but small percentage improvements could at least add up to half of something one day. All cunts like you do is repeat the same cynical shit again and again, because it's easier than actually bothering to do anything. Fuck the lot of you.
|>>|| No. 80570
They're not my sort of people and I won't have a laugh destroying anything, because it's not my party. I'll have a laugh watching it burn.
There's no delusion in saying that Labour faces serious problems. Rationally I would even say it's even possible they are insurmountable, and if they ARE insurmountable it just becomes a question of HOW the party dies. If it's going to die, it might as well die in a way that's interesting to watch instead of slowly declining.
It's perhaps worth noting that I'm one of the fucked individuals that could do with help from the Government, but I've long given up hope on that sort of thing. Emotionally speaking it becomes very tempting to then punish those who wrote the UK into a corner for the short and mid term. (Though as mentioned, I've had no real mechanism for doing that anyway.)
I've even lost hope that the breakup of the UK would be enough of a shock to the national psyche to kick out the Conservatives. Maybe they'd split. Most likely, as always, the worst possible thing would happen.
|>>|| No. 80571
If it's worth exerting a lot of effort for almost no reward, why didn't MPs rally around Corbyn instead of staging a coup, retain the absolutely ridiculous pretence he could win (like Foot), and march headlong into defeat but perhaps be a few seats up on what they're going to get now? After all, isn't a small percentage improvement worth it?
Why do MPs get to repeat the same cynical shit again and again, but party members get fuck for it?
This will be taken as a pro-Corbyn statement. I was actually praying for Liz Kendall to win, the boundary review would obliterate Labour anyway and then (in wishful thinking land) a moderate-left type who actually looks like a PM could take over and work towards 2025.
|>>|| No. 80573
It's probably most likely that we'd see a repeat of the 1980s within which Militant Tendency began to subvert the Labour council in Manchester to make them submit illegal budgets. Would you believe that, those dirty commie toerags began to demand more cash from the government than had already been given to them under our benevolent Thatcher. Thankfully it never happened and they had got rid of their hammer and sickle contingent in the end.
|>>|| No. 80574
>why didn't MPs rally around Corbyn
Because it is clear that Corbyn is not up to the job and that his leadership is going to take Labour into the worst general election drubbing since Michael Foot. The party's polling rates have plummeted. He has to go if there is to be any hope for the Labour party in the next 15-20 years.
>After all, isn't a small percentage improvement worth it?
You're a cunt who's deliberately misconstruing a point.
>This will be taken as a pro-Corbyn statement.
It's a pro-dickhead statement.
|>>|| No. 80575
Why're you only showing results in England? Is their collapse in Scotland not relevant when they continue to rule out an arrangement with the SNP?
I would make the case it was a worse loss than in 1992, which was also quite a bad loss when you (again) factor how close victory appeared and how unexpected a parliamentary majority for the Conservatives was. At least in 1992, the trend was positive for Labour.
Though I'd also raise that like 1992, the Kinnock Effect has to be factored in. The problem with that is, what future Labour leader isn't Kinnock-effect'd? (And perhaps now as part of my obligatory need to shoehorn in modernity, the Clinton effect?)
|>>|| No. 80576
>his leadership is going to take Labour into the worst general election drubbing since Michael Foot
You can still try to mitigate that drubbing. One way of doing that would be not trying to throw out a leader who has huge support among the people who actually get to vote on who the leader is. With 20/20 hindsight: You've gone and cunted it up. You've made things worse. Congratulations.
>You're a cunt who's deliberately misconstruing a point.
You're a cunt who's going to keep whining about Corbyn and doing further damage to the party on top of the damage he does. You don't actually care about making marginal gains in this case: You want him gone. If polling showed Owen "Negotiate with ISIS" Smith was even less popular than Corbyn with the public you'd still insist old-man-bycicle fuck off because you simply don't like him. Hell, you'd probably justify it with "Ah, but MPs can rally around Smith to mitigate the fact he's a twat" as though it was physically impossible to hold their noses and deal with the fact they're stuck with Mr. Marrow until 2020.
Or, y'know, "It would've been slightly better" isn't actually a rallying cry that gets anyone involved. You don't want a slightly-better Corbyn defeat, just like Corbyn lefties don't want a slightly better Tory policy...
Hey, maybe if they made him look credible enough to get an opinion poll lead MI5 help him kick himself to death in a tragic jogging accident.
|>>|| No. 80577
They lost incredibly badly and you're a fucking idiot if you can't tell why.
|>>|| No. 80578
I'm sure you're about to tell us. Some acidic bile about sandal-wearers and fruit juice-drinkers incoming in 3... 2...
|>>|| No. 80579
>You can still try to mitigate that drubbing.
That's like telling a drowning man to try laughing dryly. It won't work. It's going to be a complete bloodbath. The Tories haven't even begun their negative campaigning yet, which will be replete with Mcdonnell waving around copies of the Little Red Book, Corbyn endorsing IRA terror campaigns, and Abbott calling all white people racist. There is nothing that can be accomplished while these gang of scumbag cunts are at the top table.
>You've made things worse.
This is a core Corbyn cultist claim - that things were actually going really well until the leadership challenge. It's much like the German 'stabbed in the back' myth but this time with all Labour MPs who don't sit on the party's nutter left.
Funny how you, who 'isn't a fan of Corbyn at all, honest guv', are putting out messages that amount to no more than stop criticising the Dear Leader.
|>>|| No. 80580
That is pertinent but I was thinking more on the numbers game. There are fewer swing seats than ever, constituencies have gone harder Labour or harder Tory. Labour need a swing as great as 1997 (which was a Tory collapse in reality) to get a majority of 1. It simply won't happen.
And, on the point of sandal-wearers, as acidic as you might think it is, it's correct. I hope you guffaw and throw your quinoa out the window but it's true. Brexit has for many in hard Labour seats shown they don't need Labour and that as far as they're concerned it does nothing for them. Labour is now and will continue to be forevermore the party of the rich liberal.
|>>|| No. 80582
>You've made things worse.
>This is a core Corbyn cultist claim
True, and they're right, the lack of party unity has made things worse. That is, however, an irrelevance as far as they're concerned because Corbyn is unelectable even with a united Labour party. That's why the Labour party is spazzing out about it.
|>>|| No. 80584
>The Tories haven't even begun their negative campaigning yet,
The next decade or two is completely in the Tory's hands. Labour simply from a mathematical point of view are irrelevant. The Tories either consolidate that (as I believe Mrs. May will do) or they throw it out the window.
Corbyn ultimately doesn't matter.
|>>|| No. 80585
>The Tories haven't even begun their negative campaigning yet, which will be replete with Mcdonnell waving around copies of the Little Red Book
Yep, all those comments from earlier just passed you by, didn't they? Jesus, how the fuck does your mind just do that?
|>>|| No. 80586
>that things were actually going really well until the leadership challenge
They weren't. You've made them more of a fucking disaster.
Also, I'm not talking "until the leadership challenge", I'm talking before he was even fucking elected, twats talking about what a cunt Corbyn is ignoring the fact he'd soon be leading the party.
>There is nothing that can be accomplished while these gang of scumbag cunts are at the top table.
Good luck making the bloodbath slightly worse then, because they ain't going anywhere soon.
Cunts like you make me hope they stay on after 2020.
>Funny how you, who 'isn't a fan of Corbyn at all, honest guv', are putting out messages that amount to no more than stop criticising the Dear Leader.
Stop criticising Corbyn if you want to be consistent with your own "Well, it'll add up to something" ideal.
Otherwise, have fun fighting him and losing. I'm sitting here with popcorn watching you dipshits tear your own party limb-from-limb.
|>>|| No. 80588
Corbyn is unelectable, but in the circumstances of the leadership challenge so was his replacement.
Now, even after the failed challenge, MPs refuse to rally around him to mitigate what a fucking disaster 2020 will be. They're sitting being cynical arseholes when they could at least try to make things a little bit better.
|>>|| No. 80591
You needn't take time out of your busy Daily Mail commenting schedule to join us. Really.
>Jez is so unelectable - note how his popularity made it impossible to oust him
|>>|| No. 80593
Keeping a clear distance from Corbyn is making things better in the long run - at least Corbyn and Mcdonnell's rule, once it ends, can be spun as a fringe set of nutters at the helm, and not the entire party taking part in mass suicide.
|>>|| No. 80594
>Why're you only showing results in England?
Because that's where our elections are played out.
|>>|| No. 80595
>Labour need a swing as great as 1997 (which was a Tory collapse in reality) to get a majority of 1. It simply won't happen.
Only on the assumption of a uniform national swing. The swing in Scotland certainly isn't permanent. The SNP haven't gained support, they just attracted a lot of angry voters. That 30% swing almost certainly isn't going to stick if 2016 was anything to go by. Of course, who will actually take the two dozen or so seats they're going to lose is up for debate.
|>>|| No. 80596
>if 2016 was anything to go by
You mean when they increased their FPTP vote and bled votes entirely to the Green party?
Yeah, they're fucked. Labour will be back with 40 seats by 2025.
|>>|| No. 80597
Have you considered getting better at making memes? I hear that works pretty well for winning elections.
|>>|| No. 80599
The combination of the two has reminded me: Labour types I've spoken to are not optimistic that the boundary-review is going to aid unionist tactical voting for Labour. I've met some who think Labour's getting zero Scottish seats in 2020 when you factor that in. (Apparently Murray's seat is being redrawn to include poor parts of Edinburgh that'll probably tip things SNP, and they're just not optimistic about picking up any elsewhere.)
The boundary review is a fun confounding factor in all predictions.
|>>|| No. 80600
Yeah, I mean the one where they only managed a swing of a couple of points. If they were carrying their 2015 support into the 2016 election, they should have been winning around 55-60% of the primary vote and in total won around 75-80 seats.
|>>|| No. 80601
I'm not sure if turnout is what you're getting at here. Turnout has always been lower at Holyrood elections. (Though it was actually up 5% on 2011 in 2016. I believe it actually peaked in 1999 at 59.4%) That's not a drop in support, that's a continuation of a trend of depressed turnouts.
There's no point trying to extrapolate 2020's result from 2016's, just as there was no point in trying to get 2010's from 2007. (Even though 2011 and 2015 ended up aligning interestingly, this only came about after the referendum itself, with Labour leading Westminster voting intention, save one bump, from 2011 until 2014.)
|>>|| No. 80602
>I'm not sure if turnout is what you're getting at here
Erm, no. I mean actual share of the vote, as you'd understand if you'd bothered to read the words "of the primary vote" that came immediately after "55-60%". In the Westminster elections, they picked up a million additional votes, which is a pretty substantial share of the Scottish vote. In the subsequent Holyrood elections, it was only around 100k. Even accounting for lower turnout and "ticket-splitting" (given nothing dramatic happened in 2010-2011 other than the Lib Dem collapse), one would expect around 300-400k new votes and a significantly higher turnout.
If the votes that brought them the near-sweep in Westminster were a major shift, one would expect to see a similar effect in Holyrood, but we didn't. On that basis, it seems like a reasonable conclusion that it was little more than a reaction to the independence referendum, and that they're not likely to keep those voters.
|>>|| No. 80604
It still feels like a conflation of two different types of election.
2010: SNP ~20%
2011: SNP 44% FPTP, 45.4% List
2015: SNP 49.5%
2016: SNP 46.5% FPTP, 42% List
> In the Westminster elections, they picked up a million additional votes
On their 2010 result. On their 2011 result they were up ~600k, while 2016 was down 400k on 2015 and up ~150k on 2011.
The major shift was the change in Westminster dominance from Labour to SNP. Even if the SNP were to lose 400k votes in 2020, they'd be ahead of Brown in 2010 in raw numbers and remain the most popular party in Scotland. (Unless we assume the Labour vote held up entirely from 2015 and SNP voters went entirely to Labour, or both SNP and Labour voters went Conservative, or everyone voted Lib-Dem or UKIP, but that's a big mess, so for simplicities sake let's not assume that.)
Another thought: Labour were down 300k votes on 2010. Lib-Dems down ~230k. Toss all that at the SNP and you get them as the largest party in Scotland.
There were two components to the 2015 funfest: Voters abandoning Labour and "new" voters from the referendum. Even if we write off the newly registered voters and say they've given up entirely and won't vote in 2020, the SNP > Lab shift hasn't actually slowed at all.
I feel I've perhaps rambled and estimated that last point far less than it warrants.
As a final uncomfortable note - who's to say Labour would be the beneficiary of any SNP losses? You can't ignore that they came third in 2016. If anything Ruth Davidson's never surrender to a second referendum don't use the word Tory party could find itself the beneficiary of tactical pro-union voting. In which case, well, Labour's still fucked.
|>>|| No. 80606
Actually with hindsight "types of election" really ought to be "times of election" or something.
Essentially trying to get at the fact that 2011 was a major shift in-and-of itself. Confirmation of something along the lines of "People actually prefer the SNP to Labour at this stage, but saw Labour better placed to fight the Tories in 2010. Come 2015, people didn't see Labour in that light any-more and so gave in and voted SNP, and then voted SNP again in 2016. These people will probably still vote SNP in 2020, because Labour have only managed to implode further and you can't exactly fight the Tories by voting for them."
That's without factoring any of the people who only registered to vote because of the referendum. They're being written off here. They only really increase the margin of victory.
|>>|| No. 80608
José “Pepe” Mujica, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Rafael Correa, Juan Manuel Santos, Evo Morales, Jacob Zuma, others from the ANC figureheads, the Sandinistas, Paul Kagame, Pierre Nkurunziza, Abdul Hamid, Pranab Mukherjee, Michel Aoun, Mahmoud Abbas... a who's who of the developing world, not to mention all the EU and UN delegates that'll be there.
Ought to be an interesting affair (although I imagine your favourite "joke" - Dear Leader Dear Leader Dear Leader would fall flat among its guests).
|>>|| No. 80613
What's hilarious about Trot nutters is how at pains they are to present themselves on the intellectual high ground, all while splitting and arguing with each other about who's the Blairite. It's a laugh, don't ever stop.
|>>|| No. 80614
To be honest, people laud praise on Corbyn for 'not playing the media game' and see this as a great virtue. In reality they should abhor how fucking poor he is at communicating and how painfully he fails to anticipate the results of his actions.
If he was a CEO, or even just a standard run of the mill worker and he said 'well what I did wasn't technically wrong, who cares for the implications?' he'd be out on his arse. He's useless.
It's like the banker turning up to a food bank to donate in his chauffeur driven, gilded, Jag limo. Sure, it's technically not prohibited or bad but the implications would show a lack of understanding or care for the perceived backlash.
|>>|| No. 80615
Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but just how does one get paint out from under one's fingernails?
|>>|| No. 80618
There is an excellent book called The Opium Of Intellectuals that is well worth a skim over if you happen to find a copy.
|>>|| No. 80619
Dear Leader isn't going - the other champion of the proletariat, Emily Snobberry, is going instead. Hasta la disastro sempre!
|>>|| No. 80620
I was unaware that the evil separatism of the SNP extended to separating me into two different people.
If such an occurrence has happened, I would like to renounce arguing about election numbers at 6AM after being awake for 12 hours. I've found something much more fun to do with my life.
Thank you, Alex.
|>>|| No. 80621
Richmond on Thursday.
Whilst UKIP and the Tories have been pragmatic enough not to field candidates against Goldsmith, the 'Progressive Alliance' on the left are in disarray. The Lib Dems are the only ones with a realistic chance of winning the seat, but Labour have decided to field a candidate and split the vote despite the local parties not wanting to. The Greens have decided not to field a runner and Lucas has thrown her weight behind the Lib Dems, which has infuriated the local Green parties who are still mad at them for getting into bed with the Tories so they've decided to come out in support of Labour. What a fucking shitshow.
|>>|| No. 80622
Maybe, since Labour is the country's official opposition, the lib Dems should have stepped aside instead.
There is no 'progressive alliance' involving Labour, outside the febrile imaginations of left wing nutters, so fuck off.
|>>|| No. 80623
If fairly sure the 'progressive alliance' hates the liberals for being actually liberal, I mean liberal princpals are all well and good and it's a nice buzzword, but what about when feelings can get hurt? feeelings.
|>>|| No. 80624
The Lib-Dems are only liberal in the most relative of senses.
Orange Bookers go home. Oh wait, most of you had to. Let's see your economically-liberal solution to unemployment, you fucks. You fucking idiots, you killed the--[Connection Lost.]
|>>|| No. 80625
>Labour is the country's official opposition
They should start acting like it, then.
|>>|| No. 80627
Richmond Park for Labour:
It's not a seat Labour have any hope in, whereas the Lib Dems have polled over 40% in two of those and there's been a resurgence in support since Brexit. It's better for Labour for this to be a Lib Dem seat than a Tory one, especially when the majority is so small.
|>>|| No. 80628
Is there anybody who genuinely believes Corbyn has the slightest chance of actually becoming PM and being the man in charge?
I'd say, as things are, discounting the possibility of May being found to eat babies but even then I think she'd still win.
|>>|| No. 80629
I think the next election is a long time away and we have no idea what's going to happen before then. After this past year I wouldn't like to make any sort of political predictions really.
|>>|| No. 80630
I mean, he could become PM. That's within the bounds of the system. It's very unlikely. though honestly i'd fucking love it, what a bloody adventure that would be.
I have my doubts he'd be in charge if he was, though.
|>>|| No. 80631
He essentially doomed to fail really:
If he defers from the opposition leadership; he'll forever be known as a flaccid dishcloth of a man achieving less that fuck all and sending the labour party into oblivion
He hangs on, well there is no fucking way he'll be PM - he'll lose to another authoritarian Tory - essentially handing the leadership, yet again, to the Tories, but this time with a red bow.
If by some miracle, he actually DOES become PM, he'll be utterly shit and ineffective. "Lets get rid of Trident and have the submarines deliver fresh organic vegetables and hemp products to the needy".
|>>|| No. 80632
>"Lets get rid of Trident and have the submarines deliver fresh organic vegetables and hemp products to the needy".
Ah fuck, you got me. That was good.
|>>|| No. 80633
Imagine Corbyn trying to negotiate with Trump or Putin.
"I've had an e-mail from Rhys in Betws-y-Coed. He asks what the impact of nuclear armageddon will be on the tourism industry in Snowdonia".
|>>|| No. 80634
There would be no negotiations, it's like two completely different beings of two different consciousnesses meeting and not really knowing how the other communicates.
"But yes Mr. Trump, we've already donated 3 billion pounds worth of Brompton folding cycles and high-vis jackets to the South Sudanese in order for them to live more sustainably - what do you... Mr. Trump? Hello? Diane check if the line is working..."
Can you, for second, imagine Corbyn on the world stage?
He'll be erecting statues of Mugabe in no time.
|>>|| No. 80637
Great - so if the Lib dems withdrew their candidate, their voters would swing to Labour, and the Tory would be gone. Result!
|>>|| No. 80638
And this entitlement (expressed in jest or otherwise) is why a lefty-alliance would never work. Labour thinks everyone should stand aside and let them win.
I think everyone should gang up and put a pillow over Labour's face while it's asleep, to be honest.
|>>|| No. 80640
Funny, I'm not the one demanding that a political party stop allowing British citizens to cast a vote for it at the ballot box. Weird how I get called 'entitled'. I didn't ask that the lib dems abandon it at all, so try paying attention next time.
|>>|| No. 80641
>demanding that a political party stop allowing British citizens to cast a vote for it at the ballot box
Christ, what a wank.
|>>|| No. 80642
ICM poll out today. Tories on +44, one point off their highest ever rating. They're ahead of Labour in every socioeconomic group and age group except for 18 to 24 year olds.
|>>|| No. 80644
It'd probably be the best way for labour to go, whilst it's in its sleep. Give it that long slumber.
|>>|| No. 80645
Just as a general point, I find it amazing just how lads here are ignorant of internal Labour politics. You're talking as if Labour is this static thing, and it's plan for the next five years is "dither". Without boring you with details, all I'm going to say is this:
Corbyn's team and, more importantly, Momentum know the current status quo isn't tenable, and have known so for over a year (prior to the second leadership contest definitely). I will however provide what details I have if anyone is interested.
|>>|| No. 80646
>Corbyn's team and, more importantly, Momentum know the current status quo isn't tenable
Of course it's tenable. They'll do what they are their mates did in the 80s - collect the nice salaries, go to 'fact finding' trips to Cuba and Vegas paid for by union expenses, and achieve nothing while the Tories do the actual running of the country.
|>>|| No. 80647
>18 to 24 year olds
AKA shithead know-it-all students who are just so fucking enlightened.
Of course we're interested, the real question is will anyone actually listen and the cunt off will continue.
|>>|| No. 80649
Nothing Earth-shattering but: they're grooming some young hopefuls, one of which will take over before the election. Corbyn will step down, asking his supporters to get behind whoever's picked. Admittedly, I don't have a fucking clue who it is, but if they're smart they'll be largely unheard of (no IRA stuff please), a Scot and female with some funky-looking hair. I say "some" because I have have heard nothing about the supposed successor - a guy - since spring.
Corbyn's holding out until someone decent can get their act together - like Lenin in waiting for the German revolution (I know, I know). In the meantime Momentum is taking full advantage of the distraction, and is doing a remarkable job in taking over the party apparatus at every level. They're transforming the Labour Party in a way that will be difficult to reverse. Politicos did also say that about Blair's changes, but then again he had the Iraq fuck-up. (Me, being a cynical cunt though, think they'll be corrupted long before they take the Front Bench.)
There's a big push to get across that the party won't be new Old Labour (which can only make it New New Labour, right?) They're also reaching out to some public intellectuals/academics to endorse policies such as the Universal Minimum Wage and tax reform more prominently. Sadly Picketty's out, but expect to see more of Paul Mason and Yanis Varoufakis on TV. Whoever they get on board, the prospect of a left Labour government won't put the Bank of England at ease: the talk of "QE for the people" is a declaration of war - one that gets the enemy prepared and leaves our side ("the people") completely unaware... but perhaps that'll change once the ideas get out there some more.
>collect the nice salaries, go to 'fact finding' trips to Cuba and Vegas paid for by union expenses, and achieve nothing while the Tories do the actual running of the country
I've been a fully paid-up member of Labour for some time but, fuck, there's a lot of truth to that.
I noticed, as typing the above out, I wrote "they" instead of "we". Momentary despair perhaps, or maybe I too am giving up.
|>>|| No. 80650
>I've been a fully paid-up member of Labour for some time
So have I. It's something I've always known about the LP nutter left - they enjoy making pulpit speeches to the hordes of the faithful, but never miss out on sticking their snouts in the trough.
You're talking about Lewis?
>Corbyn's holding out until someone decent can get their act together - like Lenin in waiting for the German revolution (I know, I know). In the meantime Momentum is taking full advantage of the distraction, and is doing a remarkable job in taking over the party apparatus at every level.
It's a funny one because yes, they've swarmed at NEC level, but at a local level I don't think they're doing so well. Everyone outside of the nutter left in my CLP has done a splendid job of keeping the nutters away from the levers.
>They're also reaching out to some public intellectuals/academics to endorse policies such as the Universal Minimum Wage and tax reform more prominently
They tried this before - remember the 'New Economics' (http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/the-new-economics)? That lasted about as long as a sand castle in Hurricane Katrina. No one worth their weight in peanuts would go near anything promulgated by Labour right now. We are a joke.
|>>|| No. 80651
>You're talking about Lewis?
Yes, what's up with him? He can give a good speech, I saw him give a vehement anti-Trident one...
>We are a joke
We are. We should set up a support group... or just leave the country, but who would have us?
|>>|| No. 80652
Interesting. I had also wondered whether Corbyn had an active seat-warming plan, it would be the only possible explanation. Would love to hear who the "guy" is, but I agree, it should probably be a female (LIZ KENDALL) if they want to get some of our shy Tory votes - are they starting to realise yet that to win an election you need some of us?
Paul Mason is a fucking twat. At least Varoufakis has actually been in government. Corbyn and his crew don't understand that hanging around with bell ends like Mason is detrimental.
|>>|| No. 80653
I like Varoufakis a lot. Did you know his wife is apparently the girl referred to in Pulp's Common People?
And he's actually a very good writer. I would check out his Minotaur book even if you're not on the left.
|>>|| No. 80654
i'm still quite drawn to the idea of labour outright lying their way into power, though it's not a panacea for winning elections.
say "it's normal to have a small deficit" in opposition and you'll get booed - but when in power, run one and say "lol no it's okay listen to these economists" and you might just penetrate the press-wall (they can't exactly ignore the PM) and people can realize come the next election that the country hasn't collapsed and let the incumbency effect carry you forward. so lie, say you'll avoid it and then don't - that's what the tories are going to get away with in 2020. (for very different reasons.), just lie lie lie.
i'm mostly fantasising aloud because this is more of a problem for miliband-types and miliband's biggest problem was being miliband, but it's a genuine point when you've got something that's consensus, but bullshit. if it's bullshit in reality then just play along until you're in power and then smash it. once you've actually got power, if the policy works nobody's going to say "Ah, you did the right thing but you lied", if people's services and lives get better they're not going to complain that actually you promised zero deficit but we're on 2%.
it's a shame most people are either keen to signal that they're right, or genuinely believe nonsense. politicians should spin less and lie more.
|>>|| No. 80655
May will obliterate Labour regardless of their leader.
|>>|| No. 80657
She was a Greek heiress who studied sculpture at St Martin's at the same time tuat Jarvis Cocker studied there.
|>>|| No. 80659
What if she WAS their leader this entire time?
I think Corbyn is just May in a very well-made wig, a character used as an outlet for her multiple personalities. She's split in half between naive-good and ruthless-evil.
Watch PMQs carefully and you can see the flicker as she jumps across the dispatch box.
|>>|| No. 80660
Some small good news in a reduction in the government majority. Result not officially declared, but this is the look on Zac Goldsmith's face, while his Lib Dem opponent has a massive shit-eating grin.
|>>|| No. 80661
I laughed a lot when the Monster Raving Looney bloke shook the One Love candidate's hand, the latter seeming to realise something dreadful.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]