Quantcast
Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader? - Page 597 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

Welcome to the new and improved TLW!

 

Some of you may experience issues logging in and will get an 'incorrect password' error. Don't worry, you haven't typed it in wrong and your password hasn't been changed. You will need to reset it though in order to log in. Click the reset password link and you will receive an email with your new temporary password. Once logged in, you need to choose a new password (or restore to your old one) otherwise you will be locked out again.

 

If you have an out of date email address linked to your account, then you won't receive the new password. If that's the case then you'll need to email me (dave @liverpoolway.co.uk) or send me a tweet @theliverpoolway and I'll update your password manually. 

 

Any other problems or questions just let me know.

 

Thanks

Dave

Sugar Ape

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

182 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

Yeah, after about the tenth time of asking. At which point she might as well have just said "I hate CRAZY COMMIE Jeremy Corbyn, and would rather Pol Pot was prime minister".

 

I just find it staggering that so many people in prominent positions are so dreadful at speaking. It isn't about what she feels. We know what she feels. The interviewer knows what she feels, hence the line of questioning.

 

On your last point, I always find the comparison a little off. Corbyn defied the Democratic Socialist party when it wasn't being a Democratic Socialist party. Him not towing the line when it came to massacring kids in the Middle East, or handing over the keys of the country to Goldman Sachs and Virgin, isn't the same as what these twats are doing.

 

I don't know, I just feel that if you aren't even a fucking Social Democrat, if you can't even oppose austerity, then you really just to need to find a more suitable party.

Labour has always been a broad church though, it's like the Democrats in the States, it defines itself by What it's not - a shower of right wing, predominately white, privileged cunts. Everything else in there is pretty much open to interpretation by each individual member. They'll have MPs and leaders they like less than others.

 

I bet it you went to a conservative club in the 80s every single one would have a big spooky picture of Thatcher up and they'd all toast her at last orders. But in every Labour club there'd be people who loathed Kinnock and those who liked him. 

 

Then when Thatcher went the pic would be replaced with one of major and the toasts would begin again. 

 

I actually think that's a strength of the Labour party not a flaw. It's a myriad of ideas and people from different backgrounds, sometimes one dimension is in the ascendancy and sometimes it's not. 

 

Maybe Labour members are more 'into' politics in general? While rank and file Tories equate loyalty to their leader with patriotism. Queen and country style shit.

 

Maybe Labour is more about ideas and conservatism is - by its nature and its name - about stfling new ideas?

 

Also, imagine if you'd got Corbyn on the radio 15 years ago and asked him what he thought of Tony Blair? Would have made Hades look like Mary Berry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Labour has always been a broad church though, it's like the Democrats in the States, it defines itself by What it's not - a shower of right wing, predominately white, privileged cunts. Everything else in there is pretty much open to interpretation by each individual member. They'll have MPs and leaders they like less than others.

 

Imagine if you'd got Corbyn on the radio 15 years ago and asked him what he thought of Tony Blair? Would have made Hades look like Mary Berry.

Yes, but that broad church is from centre left to left, surely? Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. I don't think the intention is that it is so broad that it includes people with out and out right wing economic views. The Tories drifting off even further to the right shouldn't be an invitation for the church to build an extension.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely hypothetical, of course, but I reckon if you had asked Corbyn 15 years ago whether a Blair Government was "brilliant" he could have accentuated the positives - SureStart, minimum wage, Human Rights Act, etc. - even while admitting he doesn't see eye-to-eye with Blair on every issue.

 

The key difference between the real-life Berger interview and the hypothetical Corbyn one is that, as a back-bencher, Corbyn opposed the Labour leadership when they acted like Tories; Berger opposes the Labour leadership when they act against the Tories. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rico1304 said:

WTF?  Weird. 

It was a joke. Neill and Jones had a bit of a spat on telly, so now all of Neill's groupies are out for revenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The Andrew Neill fan club?

 

Good to see Portillo also let his guard down in reminding people that in the 90's the horrible cunt was to the right of Thatcher rather than making nicey nice ltravel shows today

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 3:41 PM, Strontium Dog said:

 

She was democratically elected by her constituents to represent them. Who the hell are you to decide that she has no business representing them? What part of democracy don't you understand?

 

That she's remained in the Labour Party even after it repeatedly failed to warn her of credible threats against her person is remarkable in itself, and speaks volumes for her commitment to the Labour cause. And I suspect she'll still be in Labour when all the zealots have sodded off too.

I’m one of the constituents you complete fucking plank.

 

The part of democracy you refuse to understand because you’re a disengenous snide retard is that when candidates like Tony Blair’s son mate get parachuted into your seat you’ve got no where to go.  It’s anti democratic.  The answer to that is to the let the overwhelmingly Labour supported constituency pick it’s own fucking candidate and when they do the votes shouldn’t be counted in a house where one of the fucking nominations is living at.

 

I don’t know why I’m bothering really because you’re that fucking mentally ill nothing would ever go in.  You’re past educating or listening to anything that doesn’t fit your own thick as fuck, one eyed view of politics and the world in general.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

Distanced himself from Corbyn till he did ok in the election, then he was back on board 

In fairness, he's probably not alone in that. Part of the narrative before the General Election was "he's a nice bloke with interesting policies, but he's unelectable".  Jones was never rabidly anti-Corbyn and he's consistently supported Corbyn's politics. If he really did "distance himself" I'm assuming it would be because he thought Labour would have a better chance of winning with someone else. 

 

Changing your mind in light of new facts is a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Guest said:

I’m one of the constituents you complete fucking plank.

 

The part of democracy you refuse to understand because you’re a disengenous snide retard is that when candidates like Tony Blair’s son mate get parachuted into your seat you’ve got no where to go.  It’s anti democratic.  The answer to that is to the let the overwhelmingly Labour supported constituency pick it’s own fucking candidate and when they do the votes shouldn’t be counted in a house where one of the fucking nominations is living at.

 

I don’t know why I’m bothering really because you’re that fucking mentally ill nothing would ever go in.  You’re past educating or listening to anything that doesn’t fit your own thick as fuck, one eyed view of politics and the world in general.

 

Please stop, my irony meter can only take so much.

 

It's of course highly amusing to be accused of having a one eyed view of politics by someone with, at best, a childlike understanding of the topic, and no real understanding of what other people believe, beyond writing them all off as "Tories" for not worshipping at the feet of St Jeremy.

 

But what would I know about politics. Just because members of my family have been elected to public office on Labour, Conservative and Liberal tickets over more than three quarters of a century, clearly I understand less than someone who has been in the Labour Party for five minutes, who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. The political memoirs by everyone from Ken Livingstone to Margaret Thatcher on my shelves, with every shade between, are clearly just a ruse to deflect from the fact that I can't understand the arguments within, given how I am "past educating or listening to anything" that doesn't fit my world view. The idea that I understand your risible opinions better than you do, and - gasp! - have found them wanting is evidently beyond your comprehension.

 

What I recall of Luciana Berger's selection is that she was parachuted into the constituency - much as Sir Hartley Shawcross was in St Helens in 1945, where my grandfather was the prospective candidate who had to stand aside - but she still had to be democratically selected by local Labour members. Which she was. And then democratically elected at three general elections by the people of Wavertree.

 

So that's chosen democratically by Labour members, and then chosen democratically by her constituents on three occasions, each time with bigger majorities. But she has no business representing people who have elected her three times? Yeah, I think it's not me who is mentally ill.

 

But you know, I could forgive your rank stupidity if you weren't so thoroughly obnoxious with it. You're comfortably the nastiest shit on this forum. A toxic little shithouse.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Please stop, my irony meter can only take so much.

 

It's of course highly amusing to be accused of having a one eyed view of politics by someone with, at best, a childlike understanding of the topic, and no real understanding of what other people believe, beyond writing them all off as "Tories" for not worshipping at the feet of St Jeremy.

 

But what would I know about politics. Just because members of my family have been elected to public office on Labour, Conservative and Liberal tickets over more than three quarters of a century, clearly I understand less than someone who has been in the Labour Party for five minutes, who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. The political memoirs by everyone from Ken Livingstone to Margaret Thatcher on my shelves, with every shade between, are clearly just a ruse to deflect from the fact that I can't understand the arguments within, given how I am "past educating or listening to anything" that doesn't fit my world view. The idea that I understand your risible opinions better than you do, and - gasp! - have found them wanting is evidently beyond your comprehension.

 

What I recall of Luciana Berger's selection is that she was parachuted into the constituency - much as Sir Hartley Shawcross was in St Helens in 1945, where my grandfather was the prospective candidate who had to stand aside - but she still had to be democratically selected by local Labour members. Which she was. And then democratically elected at three general elections by the people of Wavertree.

 

So that's chosen democratically by Labour members, and then chosen democratically by her constituents on three occasions, each time with bigger majorities. But she has no business representing people who have elected her three times? Yeah, I think it's not me who is mentally ill.

 

But you know, I could forgive your rank stupidity if you weren't so thoroughly obnoxious with it. You're comfortably the nastiest shit on this forum. A toxic little shithouse.

 

Negged for the Woy-esque reference to political memoirs on your shelves. Not a convincing argument. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, moof said:

Owen Jones is an excellent and effective communicator, he’s a very bright fella 

He's a useful idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Also, I still remember the first time I saw "Chavs" in a bookshop and how good it was that someone had actually written a book like that.

I have this book.  "The demonisation of the working class - How the working class changed from being seen as the salt of the earth to being seen as the scum of the earth".

 

Great read.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hades said:

 

Negged for the Woy-esque reference to political memoirs on your shelves. Not a convincing argument. 

It was fucking funny though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×