Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

It's Labour themselves who have suggested that a deal is close.

The question is, on whose terms?

 

Make no mistake, if Labour come out of there having welched on the Party policy on a customs union, rights for EU citizens, workers' rights, etc. then I'll do a full 180 and probably go full FBPE or something.  If they come out with something in line with the policy set by Conference, then I'd argue with anyone who tries to portray that as in some way collaborating with the Tories.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You’re being obtuse. 

And you're acutie.

 

I'm really not being obtuse.  I'm just disagreeing with you.  I've never claimed that the book is either anti-Semitic or not anti-Semitic.  I'm saying that the people who make claims about the book (claims which don't appear to have been made, at least not widely, in the 117 years since the book was published) are the ones who need to justify their claims.  

 

To summarise:

I'm not making claims about a book; I don't need to read it.

Other people are making claims about a book; they do need to read it.

 

What's obtuse about that?

[Strontium]

One person's compromise is another person's collaboration.

 

All I will say is that if my party was doing a Brexit deal with the Tories, they wouldn't be my party for much longer.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

As a slight aside to this issue of Hobson, I've been reading David Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories book, and the first chapter is about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's a really interesting insight into not only how anti-semitic tropes were prevalent at the time - and spread across the political spectrum - but how fabrications can become solidified when disseminated by the right people.

[RobbieOR]

31 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

His exact words were: "...right now, if I voted for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, I wouldn't be able to look a Jew, an EU citizen, anyone set to be hurt by Brexit or myself in the eye again."

 

It's patently clear that his biggest issue is Labour's duplicity over Brexit, and invoking scares about poverty and the NHS is not going to wash with people like him (or me).

 

As I said, it's a self centred view and a fuck you to the rest of society if you fall for that shit.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

And you're acutie.

 

I'm really not being obtuse.  I'm just disagreeing with you.  I've never claimed that the book is either anti-Semitic or not anti-Semitic.  I'm saying that the people who make claims about the book (claims which don't appear to have been made, at least not widely, in the 117 years since the book was published) are the ones who need to justify their claims.  

 

To summarise:

I'm not making claims about a book; I don't need to read it.

Other people are making claims about a book; they do need to read it.

 

What's obtuse about that?

You claimed it was bullshit. You're guilty of pre-judging with an agenda just the same as they are. You're being a hypocrite. 

 

Whatever. I'm actually bored to my balls with this. The sooner Corbyn is fucked off the better. Hopefully the entire LibDem and Tory party can follow him down a hole, too. One big enough for Labour and TiG to fall down into, then all the rest of us can jump into the fiery inferno along with them and finally be done with this entire charade. It's so fucking tedious. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Strontium Dog said:

One person's compromise is another person's collaboration.

 

All I will say is that if my party was doing a Brexit deal with the Tories, they wouldn't be my party for much longer.

You've stuck by them through worse. 

[Strontium]

Just now, RobbieOR said:

As I said, it's a self centred view and a fuck you to the rest of society. 

 

Can we get a list of people who are allowed to have self-interest and those who aren't?

 

And I rather think his point is that if Brexit is permitted to go ahead, it's going to be devastating for huge swathes of that society.

[RobbieOR]

6 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

One person's compromise is another person's collaboration.

 

All I will say is that if my party was doing a Brexit deal with the Tories, they wouldn't be my party for much longer.

 

But when they jump into bed with and helping them press on with austerity they still are. Gothca. 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You've stuck by them through worse. 

 

Right on, I'll never forgive the Lib Dems for conspiring to reduce the deficit and reduce my tax bill.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

If my party had a prominent figure in them who had colluded to protect a paedophile, they wouldn't be my party for long. 

 

I guess I just have higher standards than some...

[Numero Veinticinco]

12 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Right on, I'll never forgive the Lib Dems for conspiring to reduce the deficit and reduce my tax bill.

You’re a self parody at this point. I could write your posts. I know exactly the type of hideous bullshit you’re going to come out with every time. The only people l you fool with that is Rico and yourself. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

22 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

All I will say is that if my party was doing a Brexit deal with the Tories, they wouldn't be my party for much longer.

I don't need to say it, do I?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

I don't need to say it, do I?

You do not. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

18 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You claimed it was bullshit. You're guilty of pre-judging with an agenda just the same as they are. You're being a hypocrite. 

 

Whatever. I'm actually bored to my balls with this. The sooner Corbyn is fucked off the better. Hopefully the entire LibDem and Tory party can follow him down a hole, too. One big enough for Labour and TiG to fall down into, then all the rest of us can jump into the fiery inferno along with them and finally be done with this entire charade. It's so fucking tedious. 

I'm judging the claims that have been made without any supporting evidence. That doesn't put me in the same boat as those making the claims.

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

If my party had a prominent figure in them who had colluded to protect a paedophile, they wouldn't be my party for long. 

 

I guess I just have higher standards than some...

The Greens? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

I'm judging the claims that have been made without any supporting evidence. That doesn't put me in the same boat as those making the claims.

You're making claims about the veracity of it, claiming that it is wrong. You can only get to the logical conclusion that if you think their claims are bullshit, then you believe the opposite. As I say, boring and obtuse. I'm out. 

[Strontium]

16 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You’re a self parody at this point. I could write your posts. I know exactly the type of hideous bullshit you’re going to come out with every time. The only people l you fool with that is Rico and yourself. 

 

I'm sorry you find my humour hideous. Humour being a subjective thing.

 

I'm not sorry for having a far more rosy view of what the coalition achieved. Facts being an objective thing.

 

But ultimately, Brexit is going to make any of the apparent bad things that stemmed from the coalition years look petty.

[Strontium]

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

The Greens? 

 

I think he's talking about Jeremy Corbyn

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713005/I-told-Corbyn-bad-things-happened-2-months-child-sex-scandal-exposed.html

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

I'm sorry you find my humour hideous. Humour being a subjective thing.

 

I'm not sorry for having a far more rosy view of what the coalition achieved. Facts being an objective thing.

 

But ultimately, Brexit is going to make any of the apparent bad things that stemmed from the coalition years look petty.

Fucking hell. Yes. Saying ‘facts’ means you’re right. As I said, beyond parody and predictable. 

 

Facts, being objective, mean you and everything you’ve ever said is wrong. Facts. I said facts, so therefore there’s nothing left to say. 

 

 

[Strontium]

10 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Fucking hell. Yes. Saying ‘facts’ means you’re right. As I said, beyond parody and predictable. 

 

The coalition reduced the deficit. The coalition reduced my tax bill, indeed they reduced the tax bills of millions of low earners. Those are two facts. I have more.

 

Now, I acknowledge that not all the facts paint a good picture. But it is my considered opinion that, on balance, there are more good than bad. Others will disagree. I would expect nothing less, as not everyone will put the same weight of importance on different facts.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

46 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Right on, I'll never forgive the Lib Dems for conspiring to reduce the deficit and reduce my tax bill.

As long as your tax bill was reduced, that's the main thing.  I mean, why would anyone give a fuck about the essential services that taxes pay for or the people who depend on them?

 

Serious question, what are the real-world benefits of reducing the deficit  - and how do they justify the political choice to inflict hardship on millions of people?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Strontium Dog said:

 

The coalition reduced the deficit. The coalition reduced my tax bill, indeed they reduced the tax bills of millions of low earners. Those are two facts. I have more.

 

Now, I acknowledge that not all the facts paint a good picture. But it is my considered opinion that, on balance, there are more good than bad. Others will disagree. I would expect nothing less, as not everyone will put the same weight of importance on different facts.

Yes. Those are, indeed, two facts. And yes, indeed, there are more. And yes, indeed, you do put more weight on some things than others. So much so, in fact, you entirely ignore lots of them and only put forward the one or two facts that allow you to draw your desired conclusion. 

[Strontium]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

As long as your tax bill was reduced, that's the main thing.  I mean, why would anyone give a fuck about the essential services that taxes pay for or the people who depend on them?

 

Serious question, what are the real-world benefits of reducing the deficit  - and how do they justify the political choice to inflict hardship on millions of people?

 

Deficit reduction means that you end up paying much less to service a debt in the future. So obviously, its benefits will be felt most keenly in the longer term, which is one of the reasons why so many politicians view it as a nettle they do not wish to grasp.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Even Charlie boy was rotten to the core. 

 

Euuugh.