At GE2019 LAB was led by a man who had negative ratings even amongst those who had voted for the par
Options
Comments
-
Printed rocket engines, whatever next?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1364515688002519043?s=201 -
Buses, bikes?Fysics_Teacher said:
Underground rail lines? Or does that only count if the lines in question work?TheScreamingEagles said:
I suppose bridges are ok as long as they never get built.0 -
It is important not to confuse live expectancy at age 80 with life expectancy at birth.Cookie said:
If age is such a major, major factor, it is hard to believe in the figure of an average of 10 years life lost. Surely all those 85+ years olds (which will obviously include a lot of 90+s and 95+s) can't have all had that long left?Foxy said:
The graphic is not good, because age makes everything else look the same by dwarfing other variables, but in the text we see male sex is a significant risk factor:tlg86 said:
Intriguing that being male doesn't look to be much of a contributor.Nigelb said:This is a remarkable data visualisation from a study of hospitalised patient outcomes (likelihood of discharge vs mortality), which suggests that much of the mortality risk from pre-existing conditions suggested by other studies might simply be because those conditions become more prevalent with age.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1364327660244066306
That said, if the figure of 10 years for the average amount of life lost is true, then we should expect underlying health conditions to be largely immaterial.
"Male sex was also associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.76, 95%CI=1.33-2.35)"1 -
Agreed. And I'm reasonably comfortable taking that view at present because it seems vaccine refuseniks are in such a small minority.kinabalu said:
I get the annoyance - anger even - about this but I'm not sure it's a massive problem in the grand scheme of things. The objective of the vaccine rollout is to create sufficient population immunity to open up society, in stages culminating in Freedom Day on 21st June. Vaccine hesitancy or refusal should be countered in every conceivable way short of compulsion, but so long as it's not high enough to derail the reboot I won't be getting too animated about it.Andy_JS said:Never thought Id say this but Im starting to move in favour of compulsory vaccinations if the alternative is never-ending lockdown measures, due to the fact that a small percentage of people not having had the jab might be used as a reason why we cant return to normal life. At least with the jab you can get it over and done with.
1 -
I agree. We can't have lockdowns just for the unvaccinated. I doubt this is going to be an issue in UK. Look at the numbers. We don't have an anti-vax issue on a scale that will matter to wider public health imho.Philip_Thompson said:kinabalu said:
I get the annoyance - anger even - about this but I'm not sure it's a massive problem in the grand scheme of things. The objective of the vaccine rollout is to create sufficient population immunity to open up society, in stages culminating in Freedom Day on 21st June. Vaccine hesitancy or refusal should be countered in every conceivable way short of compulsion, but so long as it's not high enough to derail the reboot I won't be getting too animated about it.Andy_JS said:Never thought Id say this but Im starting to move in favour of compulsory vaccinations if the alternative is never-ending lockdown measures, due to the fact that a small percentage of people not having had the jab might be used as a reason why we cant return to normal life. At least with the jab you can get it over and done with.
The unvaccinated should become social lepers like drunk drivers, but once the vaccine rollout is done then all lockdown must be over. No ifs, no buts.
If the unvaccinated are the primary ones who die as a result that is Darwinian but so be it. I feel sorry for those they infect but we can't have lockdowns for that.
Now having extended lockdowns for what seems to me some kind of misguided fantasy about 'zero covid' is another matter. I am hoping Johnson and Witty crystal clear statement on that earlier this week has put that idea out to pasture as far as serious policy is concerned.1 -
The biggest mystery about the virus is why it doesnt affect children. Hopefully research will be carried out into why this is.0
-
Fair point. Perhaps a more useful way of presenting the data would be to say the risk of death was approximately the same for a male who is x years younger than a female (not sure if that could be worked out, though).Foxy said:
The graphic is not good, because age makes everything else look the same by dwarfing other variables, but in the text we see male sex is a significant risk factor:tlg86 said:
Intriguing that being male doesn't look to be much of a contributor.Nigelb said:This is a remarkable data visualisation from a study of hospitalised patient outcomes (likelihood of discharge vs mortality), which suggests that much of the mortality risk from pre-existing conditions suggested by other studies might simply be because those conditions become more prevalent with age.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1364327660244066306
That said, if the figure of 10 years for the average amount of life lost is true, then we should expect underlying health conditions to be largely immaterial.
"Male sex was also associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.76, 95%CI=1.33-2.35)"0 -
Wow, finally the UK share of the UK+EU total falls below 40%!CarlottaVance said:UK top in absolute terms, 5th equal in vaccines/pop
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
By population, it should be around 15%.0 -
Whether they needed to or not, they did. Taking no chances, I guess.Nigel_Foremain said:
Oh come off it. No-one needed to smear Jeremy Corbyn, he achieved all that himself. His apologists used that to try and cover up hide total awfulness. By all means disabuse me and tell me something that Jeremy Corbyn was "smeared" about was not a result of his own previous history or just his genuine stupidity? I am genuinely interested to hear about it.kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
The big problem that I have with Jeremy Corbyn, and those that supported him being leader of the Labour Party is not just the fact that he was an even more absurd applicant to the post of PM than the current incumbent, but because he was the facilitator of said current incumbent being there. Had we had a decent LoTO it is highly unlikely that the Clown would now be in No!0.
"Corbyn: Abolish the Army!"
"Corbyn: I'm supporting Brazil in the World Cup!"
"Corbyn: He nicked sarnies meant for veterans!"
"Corbyn: He danced on way to Cenotaph!"
"Corbyn: He was a Russian spy!"
We could fill a server with all the tripe.0 -
Pretty standard in the non-legacy space industry. It allows you to create extremely complex shapes (especially with built in cooling channels) at low volumes, with high repeatability and moderate cost.CarlottaVance said:Printed rocket engines, whatever next?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1364515688002519043?s=203 -
I really doubt that.Andy_JS said:
100 years ago and earlier the virus would have passed almost unnoticed.Nigelb said:This is a remarkable data visualisation from a study of hospitalised patient outcomes (likelihood of discharge vs mortality), which suggests that much of the mortality risk from pre-existing conditions suggested by other studies might simply be because those conditions become more prevalent with age.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1364327660244066306
One of the reasons for the low IFR in younger demographics is that they respond well to medical treatment that is way beyond what we had available 100 years ago.
In countries where the average age is low, they have still very much noticed it (only about one-seventeenth of the population of Manaus was over 60, for example).
Fewer old people would have died due to the fact that there were fewer old people, granted, but it would have been one hell of a lot worse amongst the younger groups.0 -
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour1 -
And vote for whom instead? Remember that:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have to credit full marks for your observation and to be honest, irrespective of the Independence debate, the SNP have the air of decay and corruption that often comes with dominant powerExiledInScotland said:Off Topic apologies.
I downloaded the Alex Salmond evidence documents yesterday as some light reading. I have compared the unredacted and redacted ministerial code submissions. The only changes were to remove references to 2 meetings to discuss the handling of the allegations against AS, with the redactions having no relation at all to the accusers identity. I understand the redactions were made after a request from the Crown Office, but I do not understand on what basis that objection was made or agreed to.
I assume the committee cannot now ask AS about these meetings because the sections have been redacted, and AS cannot talk about them in front of the committee.
This really stinks. Parliaments should be able to dig into things like this without fear or favour, otherwise future governments with really unpleasant leaders could use the precedent to cover up anything. I am amazed that the committee are being so supine.
My wife is very sad to observe the state of Scottish politics and does not recognise the nasty and toxic culture which has no part in the open generous nature of Scots
I have no idea how this will effect the polling but maybe Scots will look again before empowering the SNP yet again in May
1. The hooey about Salmond is a fabulous bit of soap opera but isn't seen as politics
2. The SNP have quite a strong record to point to when asking for re-election
3. Their various policy failings compare reasonably well against the policy failings of the alternative Tory or Labour options
Politics isn't about one single party in isolation. Yes there is a smell about some of these SNP shenanigans, but if Big G suggests the solution to corruption is to vote Tory then hold my coffee whilst I wee myself laughing. The worst case scenario for the SNP is to be reduced to a minority administration.1 -
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.2 -
You never know whether these videos have been staged or not in order to get clicks.Floater said:https://twitter.com/fred035schultz/status/1364514072419532801
Ooops...................0 -
I still believe that Theresa May's problem was that everyone assumed she would get a landslide which may have caused some to stay at home and some to switch sides. Most people thought PM Corbyn impossible so voting a different way from Tory was a way to minimise the Tory landslideCookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
3 -
Why does the graph only show odds ratios numbered 1 to 5, when clearly some categories are way higher?Philip_Thompson said:
Thankfully we don't live 100 years ago.Andy_JS said:
100 years ago the virus would have passed almost unnoticed.Nigelb said:This is a remarkable data visualisation from a study of hospitalised patient outcomes (likelihood of discharge vs mortality), which suggests that much of the mortality risk from pre-existing conditions suggested by other studies might simply be because those conditions become more prevalent with age.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1364327660244066306
100 years ago there wouldn't have been that many elderly still alive.0 -
SpaceX are doing it for a lot of the iterative parts on their Starship test flights. They’re getting destroyed anyway, so might as well make them as cheaply and quickly as possible until there’s a candidate for the final design.Malmesbury said:
Pretty standard in the non-legacy space industry. It allows you to create extremely complex shapes (especially with built in cooling channels) at low volumes, with high repeatability and moderate cost.CarlottaVance said:Printed rocket engines, whatever next?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1364515688002519043?s=201 -
By "smear" I mean smear. And by "plain silly" I meant plain silly.Philip_Thompson said:
If by smear you mean educating the public in what Corbyn actually said and did then yes.kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
If by smear you mean making things up then no. There was no need to do that as Corbyn had such a rich history there was literally no point in making anything up about him, it was rendered entirely redundant.0 -
You might be right but CCHQ thought you were wrong, and that 2017 went beyond social care. That is why the Conservatives lifted so many elements of Labour's campaign for next time. Of course, Boris did not say much about social care either.eek said:
May's mistake was trying to fix the cost of social care.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
Without that she would have won a majority but with it she lost just enough votes to create a problem.
I really don't think Corbyn was much of an issue one way or the other.0 -
-
The sad thing is that the proposal itself wasn't a bad idea, and the issue of social care still remains a huge problem four years later.DecrepiterJohnL said:
You might be right but CCHQ thought you were wrong, and that 2017 went beyond social care. That is why the Conservatives lifted so many elements of Labour's campaign for next time. Of course, Boris did not say much about social care either.eek said:
May's mistake was trying to fix the cost of social care.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
Without that she would have won a majority but with it she lost just enough votes to create a problem.
I really don't think Corbyn was much of an issue one way or the other.0 -
He was judged the best option available, sure. That doesn't mean he was objectively the best option though.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.0 -
Amnesty - brilliant concept - lost its way years ago by broadening its focus into issues way beyond the protection of non violent prisoners of conscience. Once they went into territory like opposition to the death penalty - however well intentioned - they lost their USP.Luckyguy1983 said:
Let's say he has in the past said hateful things. How does that make him not a prisoner of conscience? The two don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Seems like the Russians taking advantage of Amnesty being a woke mess.rkrkrk said:
Is that really true? Or just Russian fake news?Nigelb said:
Seems quite unlikely to me to be honest.
If some non violent consciences are going to be better than others they will lose a lot of support.
And who decides? And who guards the guards?
2 -
Hence CCHQ's negative social media campaigning; under the radar so Labour could not respond to it.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
0 -
-
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.0 -
There's no such thing as an overall objective best in politics, its all subjective.Gallowgate said:
He was judged the best option available, sure. That doesn't mean he was objectively the best option though.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
On the objective measures of seats won or vote share or opinion polls he was best, but I'd value subjective measures over those.0 -
Labour’s Jackie Baillie — ordinarily a cheery soul — underlined the gloom. ‘I want to be optimistic and I am equally patient but I would like to ask the First Minister what the ultimate goal is.’ Was it virus suppression or virus elimination?
The goal, Sturgeon replied, was ‘as close to elimination as possible’ but also ‘to get back to normal life’. Those two destinations are miles apart with no roadmap for the rough terrain in between.
https://stephendaisley.com/2021/02/24/no-exit/1 -
They use it as part of their standard build processes - 3D printing and low/zero touch CNC can massively reduce issues of reproducibility/tooling maintenance etc. Not quite "Print me a FFSC rocket engine", but heading there....Sandpit said:
SpaceX are doing it for a lot of the iterative parts on their Starship test flights. They’re getting destroyed anyway, so might as well make them as cheaply and quickly as possible until there’s a candidate for the final design.Malmesbury said:
Pretty standard in the non-legacy space industry. It allows you to create extremely complex shapes (especially with built in cooling channels) at low volumes, with high repeatability and moderate cost.CarlottaVance said:Printed rocket engines, whatever next?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1364515688002519043?s=20
1 -
I think the actual answer is somewhere between your two positions. No doubt Brexit had a significant effect but I don't think it was all-encompassing like you sometimes suggest, @HYUFD .HYUFD said:
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.0 -
The heat and fury of an election campaign is not the time to bring out a proposal like that.Sandpit said:
The sad thing is that the proposal itself wasn't a bad idea, and the issue of social care still remains a huge problem four years later.DecrepiterJohnL said:
You might be right but CCHQ thought you were wrong, and that 2017 went beyond social care. That is why the Conservatives lifted so many elements of Labour's campaign for next time. Of course, Boris did not say much about social care either.eek said:
May's mistake was trying to fix the cost of social care.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
Without that she would have won a majority but with it she lost just enough votes to create a problem.
I really don't think Corbyn was much of an issue one way or the other.
There were years until the next election was due, it could have been released prior to the election or after it and been debated on its merits. Instead it got tarnished by the election without a chance to reasonably discuss it.4 -
That's exactly my point.Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as an overall objective best in politics, its all subjective.Gallowgate said:
He was judged the best option available, sure. That doesn't mean he was objectively the best option though.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
On the objective measures of seats won or vote share or opinion polls he was best, but I'd value subjective measures over those.1 -
On BBC which is good enough for me. Seems like madness from Amnesty tbh.Nigelb said:1 -
Five down first over back.0
-
"Possibly"? they're up to their oxters in it!Scott_xP said:2 -
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.4 -
May's social care plans did not help her in 2017 either, no.eek said:
May's mistake was trying to fix the cost of social care.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
Without that she would have won a majority but with it she lost just enough votes to create a problem.
I really don't think Corbyn was much of an issue one way or the other.
May's problem was she was too honest about the difficult solutions needed to tackle problems, eg people would need to pay more to cover their social care in future and GB would have to be in a temporary customs union and with closer alignment to the single market to avoid a border in the Irish Sea given the EU would not agree to any trade deal that led to a hard border in Ireland.
Boris however was willing to promise cake for all to get elected, ie to be an even better populist in 2019 than Corbyn was in 20173 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889–1890_pandemic#CoronavirusAndy_JS said:
100 years ago and earlier the virus would have passed almost unnoticed.Nigelb said:This is a remarkable data visualisation from a study of hospitalised patient outcomes (likelihood of discharge vs mortality), which suggests that much of the mortality risk from pre-existing conditions suggested by other studies might simply be because those conditions become more prevalent with age.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/13643276602440663060 -
They are going down the route in ROI which offers no hope to anyone. ROI has near-zero excess deaths because most people who die of COVID-19 are frail. But ROI has a lot of public-sector dependent interest groups who benefit, so between the old and the dependent, it is now stuck in lockdown until the EU acquires enough vaccines to cover over 80 per cent of the population.CarlottaVance said:Labour’s Jackie Baillie — ordinarily a cheery soul — underlined the gloom. ‘I want to be optimistic and I am equally patient but I would like to ask the First Minister what the ultimate goal is.’ Was it virus suppression or virus elimination?
The goal, Sturgeon replied, was ‘as close to elimination as possible’ but also ‘to get back to normal life’. Those two destinations are miles apart with no roadmap for the rough terrain in between.
https://stephendaisley.com/2021/02/24/no-exit/0 -
And being able to formulate complicated hollow structures in a single piece is presumably a massive advantage in engineering where mass is a crucial consideration.Malmesbury said:
They use it as part of their standard build processes - 3D printing and low/zero touch CNC can massively reduce issues of reproducibility/tooling maintenance etc. Not quite "Print me a FFSC rocket engine", but heading there....Sandpit said:
SpaceX are doing it for a lot of the iterative parts on their Starship test flights. They’re getting destroyed anyway, so might as well make them as cheaply and quickly as possible until there’s a candidate for the final design.Malmesbury said:
Pretty standard in the non-legacy space industry. It allows you to create extremely complex shapes (especially with built in cooling channels) at low volumes, with high repeatability and moderate cost.CarlottaVance said:Printed rocket engines, whatever next?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1364515688002519043?s=201 -
There was polling evidence against that - the swing to Labour was largest among people who thought Labour was likely to win.Nigel_Foremain said:
I still believe that Theresa May's problem was that everyone assumed she would get a landslide which may have caused some to stay at home and some to switch sides. Most people thought PM Corbyn impossible so voting a different way from Tory was a way to minimise the Tory landslideCookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
I don't think it's possible to be much more negative than the 12-page features on how awful Labour would be that ran in the Sun and the Mail. Negative campaigning mainly works when most of the public is already convinced that the LOTO is unacceptable, which wasn't yet entirely the case in 2017 (but became the case in 2019, as Mike's leader demonstrates).
This is all water under the bridge, but the relevant point now is that the Tories will need to have some positive reasons in 2024, as a campaign based on "Starmer, the Evil Threat" won't work as there is really less to go on than they already had against Corbyn in 2017.2 -
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.2 -
I think advances in 3D printing have particularly interesting implications for Martian colonies. Instead of needing to transport lots of precisely made goods, which then need to survive landing, you can dump certain raw materials and have them converted through 3D printing into a wide variety of tools and the like.
Not a space chap, but it seems like that would make life a lot easier.2 -
England being taken apart.0
-
He's said he had a brilliant plan to fix it, but unfortunately the margin manifesto was too small to fit it in.DecrepiterJohnL said:
You might be right but CCHQ thought you were wrong, and that 2017 went beyond social care. That is why the Conservatives lifted so many elements of Labour's campaign for next time. Of course, Boris did not say much about social care either.eek said:
May's mistake was trying to fix the cost of social care.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
Without that she would have won a majority but with it she lost just enough votes to create a problem.
I really don't think Corbyn was much of an issue one way or the other.
The key difference between May and Johnson? May believes you can't have your cake and eat it- you want decent social care, it's going to cost someone a lot; if you want invisible borders, you can't just do what you want within yours. Johnson fundamentally still believes you can have whatever you want, and that worrying about internal contradictions in your desires is for girly swots.
One approach is clearly more effective for winning elections. The other approach tends to work better the rest of the time.2 -
The best case for the union is tactical voting and I would do so in ScotlandRochdalePioneers said:
And vote for whom instead? Remember that:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have to credit full marks for your observation and to be honest, irrespective of the Independence debate, the SNP have the air of decay and corruption that often comes with dominant powerExiledInScotland said:Off Topic apologies.
I downloaded the Alex Salmond evidence documents yesterday as some light reading. I have compared the unredacted and redacted ministerial code submissions. The only changes were to remove references to 2 meetings to discuss the handling of the allegations against AS, with the redactions having no relation at all to the accusers identity. I understand the redactions were made after a request from the Crown Office, but I do not understand on what basis that objection was made or agreed to.
I assume the committee cannot now ask AS about these meetings because the sections have been redacted, and AS cannot talk about them in front of the committee.
This really stinks. Parliaments should be able to dig into things like this without fear or favour, otherwise future governments with really unpleasant leaders could use the precedent to cover up anything. I am amazed that the committee are being so supine.
My wife is very sad to observe the state of Scottish politics and does not recognise the nasty and toxic culture which has no part in the open generous nature of Scots
I have no idea how this will effect the polling but maybe Scots will look again before empowering the SNP yet again in May
1. The hooey about Salmond is a fabulous bit of soap opera but isn't seen as politics
2. The SNP have quite a strong record to point to when asking for re-election
3. Their various policy failings compare reasonably well against the policy failings of the alternative Tory or Labour options
Politics isn't about one single party in isolation. Yes there is a smell about some of these SNP shenanigans, but if Big G suggests the solution to corruption is to vote Tory then hold my coffee whilst I wee myself laughing. The worst case scenario for the SNP is to be reduced to a minority administration.1 -
No, working class one-time Labour voters switched to the Clown primarily because they didn't want what they regarded as a communist in No 10. Very simple. Mike has done a number of headers that have demo'd this. Perhaps you missed them.HYUFD said:
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.0 -
I thought weight was the primary consideration and expense when transporting goods out of the atmosphere, and therefore it wouldn't matter too much if you're transporting "precisely made goods" or "raw materials"? I guess it would be a game changer if the materials can be "mined" in space itself rather than having to pull them out of the earth's gravitational pull.Morris_Dancer said:I think advances in 3D printing have particularly interesting implications for Martian colonies. Instead of needing to transport lots of precisely made goods, which then need to survive landing, you can dump certain raw materials and have them converted through 3D printing into a wide variety of tools and the like.
Not a space chap, but it seems like that would make life a lot easier.0 -
There is a fair of processing required for parts post-print at the moment - porosity etc.Morris_Dancer said:I think advances in 3D printing have particularly interesting implications for Martian colonies. Instead of needing to transport lots of precisely made goods, which then need to survive landing, you can dump certain raw materials and have them converted through 3D printing into a wide variety of tools and the like.
Not a space chap, but it seems like that would make life a lot easier.
We aren't at the print-and-use-immediately stage yet, except for simple plastic things.0 -
1
-
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.0 -
India's first innings to start before or after Tea?1
-
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.2 -
Under Boris, the Conservatives won the highest share of the national vote for any party in 40 years. But I'm sure that pales into comparison with your own electoral achievements and those of graduates of the Nigel Foremain School of Political Leadership.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.2 -
I've heard engineers say that an equally big gain is the ability to qualify a single big part.Nigelb said:
And being able to formulate complicated hollow structures in a single piece is presumably a massive advantage in engineering where mass is a crucial consideration.Malmesbury said:
They use it as part of their standard build processes - 3D printing and low/zero touch CNC can massively reduce issues of reproducibility/tooling maintenance etc. Not quite "Print me a FFSC rocket engine", but heading there....Sandpit said:
SpaceX are doing it for a lot of the iterative parts on their Starship test flights. They’re getting destroyed anyway, so might as well make them as cheaply and quickly as possible until there’s a candidate for the final design.Malmesbury said:
Pretty standard in the non-legacy space industry. It allows you to create extremely complex shapes (especially with built in cooling channels) at low volumes, with high repeatability and moderate cost.CarlottaVance said:Printed rocket engines, whatever next?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1364515688002519043?s=20
Traditional manufacturing gives you a pile of bits, where you have to do traceability and quality on each piece for aerospace applications.
With zero touch CNC and 3D print - you have a generic automated process. Once the design and manufacture is qualified, then a few test on the machines (to check they are working in spec) plus a few tests on the produced parts does the job.2 -
Good lord no! For a cricket fan you'd think she had heard of "rolling the pitch".Philip_Thompson said:
The heat and fury of an election campaign is not the time to bring out a proposal like that.Sandpit said:
The sad thing is that the proposal itself wasn't a bad idea, and the issue of social care still remains a huge problem four years later.DecrepiterJohnL said:
You might be right but CCHQ thought you were wrong, and that 2017 went beyond social care. That is why the Conservatives lifted so many elements of Labour's campaign for next time. Of course, Boris did not say much about social care either.eek said:
May's mistake was trying to fix the cost of social care.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
Without that she would have won a majority but with it she lost just enough votes to create a problem.
I really don't think Corbyn was much of an issue one way or the other.
There were years until the next election was due, it could have been released prior to the election or after it and been debated on its merits. Instead it got tarnished by the election without a chance to reasonably discuss it.
It was a "brave" plan born out of hubris.1 -
You really do take any criticism of Boris personally don't you? It's very weird.BluestBlue said:
Under Boris, the Conservatives won the highest share of the national vote for any party in 40 years. But I'm sure that pales into comparison with your own electoral achievements and those of graduates of the Nigel Foremain School of Political Leadership.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.1 -
England left hoping this is going to be a 20-wicket day....Philip_Thompson said:Five down first over back.
3 -
Corbyn wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. had the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.3 -
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.1 -
Mr. Malmesbury, that's a sound point, although it's also a while until heading to Mars will be credible, so technology will've advanced by then.
The Splendid Blue, a huge part of the clown winning so handsomely was the presence of Corbyn and the absence of a Theresa May act of electoral suicide by such an epic cackhanded announcement as her social care madness.0 -
I'll give you 2/1 on before tea if you like?Philip_Thompson said:India's first innings to start before or after Tea?
Edit: Rapidly shortening odds on before tea. 5/1 England make it to the break?0 -
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.BluestBlue said:
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.0 -
I'll pass thanks that seems like fair odds. If I was betting I'd be tempted.Sandpit said:
I'll give you 2/1 on before tea if you like?Philip_Thompson said:India's first innings to start before or after Tea?
No bet but what odds that England are still batting tomorrow morning? Not good.0 -
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.0 -
Well you are a 'bad faith partisan softhead' and proud of it, aren't you?BluestBlue said:
Corbyn wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. had the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.
0 -
Surely you jest?CarlottaVance said:
Any thoughts on the performance of the Crown Office?Theuniondivvie said:
2018, all the people who had loathed Salmond for decades exploded with joy at the prospect of him being tried & convicted for attempted rape, and going to jail. A side note was a belief that Sturgeon was trying to protect Salmond.rkrkrk said:Can we have a thread header on this Salmond/Sturgeon thing please? I honestly have no idea what's going on.
2020, all the people who had loathed Salmond for decades broke into a howl of rage that he had got off, with much blubbering about fixes and the women alleging assault having been let down.
2021, all the people who had loathed Salmond for decades went through a Damascene conversion to believing a great injustice had been done to him, and that Sturgeon, the most popular politician in Scotland, must resign.
The unifying factor of these chameleon-like changes is that each time these people believed that they had found yet another silver bullet to destroy Scottish Indy and the SNP. Because they have no talented politicians, policies, positive cases for the UK or consistent principles of their own, they have to cling to these external events to preserve their fraying union.
I think that just about covers a particular aspect of what's going on.0 -
He was clearly smeared, particularly around the racist allegations. I`m not convinced that the Salisbury thing was a massive factor. Corbyn`s lack of patriotism was a factor to be sure but for the main reason why LP did so badly in 2019 you have to turn to the gridlock in Parliament and the Brexit blocking.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.2 -
Had the rebels purged themselves before the 2017 election as they did for Johnson in the 2019 election, Theresa May could still be governing now. She didn't lose that many seats.0
-
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.0 -
How do we know that Martians can even read the instructions on the box? Maybe they are a bit dim.Malmesbury said:
There is a fair of processing required for parts post-print at the moment - porosity etc.Morris_Dancer said:I think advances in 3D printing have particularly interesting implications for Martian colonies. Instead of needing to transport lots of precisely made goods, which then need to survive landing, you can dump certain raw materials and have them converted through 3D printing into a wide variety of tools and the like.
Not a space chap, but it seems like that would make life a lot easier.
We aren't at the print-and-use-immediately stage yet, except for simple plastic things.
0 -
He said he had a plan to sort itDecrepiterJohnL said:
You might be right but CCHQ thought you were wrong, and that 2017 went beyond social care. That is why the Conservatives lifted so many elements of Labour's campaign for next time. Of course, Boris did not say much about social care either.eek said:
May's mistake was trying to fix the cost of social care.Cookie said:On thread - Theresa May's failure in 2017 wasn't in failing to persuade enough people to vote Conservative - Con in 2017 received the third highest vote total of any party at any GE ever (yes I know the electoral roll is gradually expanding, but still...) but in failing to persuade sufficient people not to vote Labour. It's not exactly edifying for democracy, but the conclusion is that the campaign was insufficiently negative.
Without that she would have won a majority but with it she lost just enough votes to create a problem.
I really don't think Corbyn was much of an issue one way or the other.1 -
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his legislative programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.Gallowgate said:
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.BluestBlue said:
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.2 -
27% voted for Foot in 1983, 32% voted for Corbyn in 2019, 31% voted for the Tories in 1997 and 32% voted for Hague in 2001 so about 30% of the electorate will always vote Labour or Tory whoever is leading them.BluestBlue said:
Corbyn wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. had the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.0 -
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.BluestBlue said:
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.Gallowgate said:
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.BluestBlue said:
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.0 -
Except those working class Labour Leave voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, they merely lent their votes to Boris in 2019 (note to Boris not the Tories) to get Brexit doneNigel_Foremain said:
No, working class one-time Labour voters switched to the Clown primarily because they didn't want what they regarded as a communist in No 10. Very simple. Mike has done a number of headers that have demo'd this. Perhaps you missed them.HYUFD said:
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.0 -
This isn't the forum for a debate on whether objectivity is real or possible; try Thomas Nagel's 'The View from Nowhere' and report back, or not...Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
It's harder than the history of feudal land law.
0 -
If by 'whatever' you mean 'indisputable facts', then yes.Gallowgate said:
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.BluestBlue said:
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.Gallowgate said:
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.BluestBlue said:
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.0 -
You said:Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.0 -
We'll see if it was lent.HYUFD said:
Except those working class voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, they merely lent their votes to Boris in 2019 to get Brexit doneNigel_Foremain said:
No, working class one-time Labour voters switched to the Clown primarily because they didn't want what they regarded as a communist in No 10. Very simple. Mike has done a number of headers that have demo'd this. Perhaps you missed them.HYUFD said:
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.
The "red wall" North outside of the cities has been swinging blue relative to the rest of the country for the past decade now.1 -
2. They have a what now? What exactly does this record consist of? The last time I saw a bulleted list of SNP achievements from them, it had giving cardboard boxes to families to put babies in near the top of a very short list - not even something from the most recent term of office.RochdalePioneers said:
And vote for whom instead? Remember that:Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have to credit full marks for your observation and to be honest, irrespective of the Independence debate, the SNP have the air of decay and corruption that often comes with dominant powerExiledInScotland said:Off Topic apologies.
I downloaded the Alex Salmond evidence documents yesterday as some light reading. I have compared the unredacted and redacted ministerial code submissions. The only changes were to remove references to 2 meetings to discuss the handling of the allegations against AS, with the redactions having no relation at all to the accusers identity. I understand the redactions were made after a request from the Crown Office, but I do not understand on what basis that objection was made or agreed to.
I assume the committee cannot now ask AS about these meetings because the sections have been redacted, and AS cannot talk about them in front of the committee.
This really stinks. Parliaments should be able to dig into things like this without fear or favour, otherwise future governments with really unpleasant leaders could use the precedent to cover up anything. I am amazed that the committee are being so supine.
My wife is very sad to observe the state of Scottish politics and does not recognise the nasty and toxic culture which has no part in the open generous nature of Scots
I have no idea how this will effect the polling but maybe Scots will look again before empowering the SNP yet again in May
1. The hooey about Salmond is a fabulous bit of soap opera but isn't seen as politics
2. The SNP have quite a strong record to point to when asking for re-election
3. Their various policy failings compare reasonably well against the policy failings of the alternative Tory or Labour options
Politics isn't about one single party in isolation. Yes there is a smell about some of these SNP shenanigans, but if Big G suggests the solution to corruption is to vote Tory then hold my coffee whilst I wee myself laughing. The worst case scenario for the SNP is to be reduced to a minority administration.0 -
-
That's 'bad faith partisan hardhead' to you!kinabalu said:
Well you are a 'bad faith partisan softhead' and proud of it, aren't you?BluestBlue said:
Corbyn wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. had the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.
1 -
Not at allBluestBlue said:
If by 'whatever' you mean 'indisputable facts', then yes.Gallowgate said:
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.BluestBlue said:
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.Gallowgate said:
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.BluestBlue said:
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.0 -
Johnson's 'plan', faced with the confusion British industry was facing, was to make the situation incomparably worse. To 'make a desolation and call it peace'.Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.1 -
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.Gallowgate said:
You said:Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.0 -
Sticking my oar in here, but what’s the difference between being better and being deemed better? Surely both are the same, as it isn’t something with an absolute scale.Gallowgate said:
You said:Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.0 -
It still stayed Labour overall in 2017, it only went Tory in 2019Philip_Thompson said:
We'll see if it was lent.HYUFD said:
Except those working class voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, they merely lent their votes to Boris in 2019 to get Brexit doneNigel_Foremain said:
No, working class one-time Labour voters switched to the Clown primarily because they didn't want what they regarded as a communist in No 10. Very simple. Mike has done a number of headers that have demo'd this. Perhaps you missed them.HYUFD said:
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.
The "red wall" North outside of the cities has been swinging blue relative to the rest of the country for the past decade now.0 -
This is ridiculous.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.Gallowgate said:
You said:Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.0 -
Worse?OldKingCole said:
Johnson's 'plan', faced with the confusion British industry was facing, was to make the situation incomparably worse. To 'make a desolation and call it peace'.Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
The situation is far better now than it was in 2019 in my opinion.0 -
That's how swinging works. Eventually it reaches a tipping point.HYUFD said:
It still stayed Labour overall in 2017, it only went Tory in 2019Philip_Thompson said:
We'll see if it was lent.HYUFD said:
Except those working class voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, they merely lent their votes to Boris in 2019 to get Brexit doneNigel_Foremain said:
No, working class one-time Labour voters switched to the Clown primarily because they didn't want what they regarded as a communist in No 10. Very simple. Mike has done a number of headers that have demo'd this. Perhaps you missed them.HYUFD said:
So you are saying May was worse than a donkey then, given she did not win big against Corbyn in 2017?Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
The Tories were always going to get 42%+ against Corbyn as they did in 2017 and 2019 in order to keep him out of No 10.
The main difference between 2017 and 2019 though was diehard Remainers decided the LDs were a better bet to stop Brexit than Corbyn Labour and some working class Leave voters switched from Labour to the Tories under Boris to get Brexit done.
The "red wall" North outside of the cities has been swinging blue relative to the rest of the country for the past decade now.1 -
If you can prove that voting for an MP who would have made Corbyn Prime Minister is in any meaningful way 'not voting for Corbyn' under our constitutional and electoral system, then you'll deserve a very lucrative legal career indeed.Gallowgate said:
Not at allBluestBlue said:
If by 'whatever' you mean 'indisputable facts', then yes.Gallowgate said:
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.BluestBlue said:
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.Gallowgate said:
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.BluestBlue said:
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.0 -
You are dancing on a pin.Gallowgate said:
This is ridiculous.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said objective. I said best. You keep adding the word objective not me.Gallowgate said:
You said:Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
If he's deemed to be the best then those doing the deeming agreed with me.
I didn't say you said "objective truth". I said you presented your hypothesis as objective truth.
You didn't say "the electorate thought he was the best". You said "he was the best".
This is turning into a completely meaningless argument but the fact you can't see the difference is worrying.
He was [subjectively] the best for amongst other reasons the reasons I have given.
There's no such thing as objective so its silly to bring it in. He [subjectively] was the best, we only have subjective reality. The public agreed that [subjectively] he was the best.0 -
It depends what you're discussing, surely.RobD said:
Sticking my oar in here, but what’s the difference between being better and being deemed better? Surely both are the same, as it isn’t something with an absolute scale.Gallowgate said:
You said:Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
Is Boris better at winning elections than May, Corbyn, Swinson, etc? Of course. The evidence is there.
Was Boris the best person for the job? Well the electorate thought so, @Philip_Thompson clearly thinks so, and that's fine. But him winning is not evidence of being the best person for the job, like @Philip_Thompson highlighted – that's entirely subjective.0 -
Here are the Guardian attempting o triangulate some of Corbyn's nuttier statements.Pulpstar said:
People such as him should be now at the back of the queue I think ?Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed - and hopefully he's not passed the bug onto somebody more vulnerable as a result.eek said:
Self inflicted so no sympathy and it's a bit annoying that he still qualifies for sick pay but hopefully it's not too serious.Philip_Thompson said:A colleague of my wife's refused the vaccine as "they don't work against the variants so why bother getting it." 🤦♂️
He has tested positive. 🤦♂️
I mean not for punishment/moral reasons but anyone infected there's no real point getting the jab for a few months after ?
It doesn't quite work.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/tory-attack-ad-corbyn-remarks-context0 -
Well I’d say Corbyn is best at winning elections given how long he’s been in the Commons.Gallowgate said:
It depends what you're discussing, surely.RobD said:
Sticking my oar in here, but what’s the difference between being better and being deemed better? Surely both are the same, as it isn’t something with an absolute scale.Gallowgate said:
You said:Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm not, I never used the word objective since there is no objective truth. It is you that keeps bringing it up.Gallowgate said:
You're the one who brought it up!Philip_Thompson said:
There's no such thing as objective so there's no reason to bring it up.Gallowgate said:
All of the things you listed are your opinions rather than objective fact.Philip_Thompson said:
He beat Hunt as he was a better candidate with better judgement than Hunt.Nigel_Foremain said:
As usual your analysis is very weak. He beat Hunt because he pretended to believe in Brexit, which like most things in his life was a lie and duplicitous political calculation. So, no Philip, he was not "better" than Hunt, either as a person or in his track record in office, leadership skills or honesty. Considerably worse than the hapless May also on all fronts. Just for balance, he is also "not better" than Gove or a handful of genuine Brexit believers. Boris Johnson is an appropriately cretinous figurehead for Brexit; a policy based on stupidity, prejudice and lies and led by a liar. Those are your values, and therefore you are an appropriate fanbois of the most inappropriate person ever to have held the office.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.Nigel_Foremain said:
Sorry HYUFD, but you are too obsessed by the Brexit prism. Sure, some people, myself included, changed voting patterns of a lifetime as a result, but I think we are a tiny minority. Johnson won because of Corbyn, not Brexit. They chose the right wing clown over the left wing one. Corbyn was even better for the Tories than Kinnoch or Foot. The Tories could have won big had they put a donkey up against Corbyn. And they did!HYUFD said:
Had Labour done that after 2017 though, they would have lost even more diehard Remainers to the LDs (remember even in 2019 Corbyn and Starmer promised EUref2) while the Tories would still have lost the Leavers to the Brexit Party that Boris won back.GIN1138 said:
What could have been if Labour had voted for Theresa May's deal and then set back and watched the Tories tear themselves apart...HYUFD said:At the 2019 general election Labour was down 8% compared to the 2017 election, the LDs up 4% and the Greens and Tories were each up 1% with the Brexit Party on 2%.
So most of the movement was Remainers from Labour to the LDs and Greens to try and stop Brexit, with working class Leavers moving to the Tories and Brexit Party to try and deliver Brexit.
There was never any real love for Corbyn in 2017 from many Labour voters, he was just a vehicle to stop Brexit, when he did not do so lots of those voters went LD while his failure to back Brexit also lost him Leave votes too.
So the main gainers would have been Farage and the LDs rather than Labour
He was the best option available. That's why he won.
Hunt wanted to continue with the failed and discredited Theresa May politicy of indefinitely extending Article 50 which was an atrociously bad policy leaving us in perpetual limbo and unable to get anywhere.
Because of Johnson's rejecting of that policy he was able to renegotiate May's awful deal, get a better one for England and Wales at least and win a landslide majority.
So yes, better than Hunt.
So you think he was better than Hunt but it doesn't mean he IS better than Hunt. Just like you said in your earlier post.
I've given logical reasons as to why he's better. The priority in 2019 was surely resolving Brexit, getting out of the mess of the 2017-19 Parliament, the perpetual Article 50 extensions etc.
Hunt did not have a plan to do that. He was willing to go on with extending Article 50 and had no solution.
Johnson had a plan to do that - and his plan worked.
That's what makes Johnson better and is a key part of why he was elected and why he won the election and why he deserved to do so on his own merits not just Corbyn's demerits.
You said he was the best for the job because he was elected. That's objectively wrong.
He was judged the best for the job by the public and was clearly the best at winning elections.
That doesn't mean he is the best at being prime minister though. Like you said, there's no such thing as objective, but you were the one who asserted he was objectively the best.
I didn't say he was best because he was elected. I said he was elected because he was the best candidate on offer.
I said he was best, I never said he was objectively the best.
"Johnson won because he was better than Corbyn, yes, but also because he was better than May and better than Hunt and better than Swinson.
He was the best option available. That's why he won."
And I corrected you. Johnson won because he was deemed to be better than Corbyn and Swinson.
That doesn't mean he was the best option available.
You presented the fact as objective truth and it just isn't, just like you later said.
Is Boris better at winning elections than May, Corbyn, Swinson, etc? Of course. The evidence is there.
Was Boris the best person for the job? Well the electorate thought so, @Philip_Thompson clearly thinks so, and that's fine. But him winning is not evidence of being the best person for the job, like @Philip_Thompson highlighted – that's entirely subjective. 0 -
You made some ridiculous and partisan assertion that the fact 30% of the country voted for Labour led by Corbyn is a "national disgrace".BluestBlue said:
If you can prove that voting for an MP who would have made Corbyn Prime Minister is in any meaningful way 'not voting for Corbyn' under our constitutional and electoral system, then you'll deserve a very lucrative legal career indeed.Gallowgate said:
Not at allBluestBlue said:
If by 'whatever' you mean 'indisputable facts', then yes.Gallowgate said:
Whatever helps maintain your moral superiority mate.BluestBlue said:
Is Catherine McKinnell a Labour MP? Would she have supported Corbyn in passing his Queen's Speech programme and in votes of confidence? If so, then I'm afraid to say you did vote for Corbyn to become Prime Minister.Gallowgate said:
Rubbish. I voted for Catherine McKinnell but I didn't vote for Corbyn.BluestBlue said:
He wasn't 'smeared' (i.e. the truth told about him) nearly enough. That he got over 30% of the public to vote for him even after they all knew what he was is something of a national disgrace.kinabalu said:
I'm using "smear" in its traditional sense of smear.Floater said:
by smear you mean pointing out all the things that made the man and those that surrounded him a disgrace?kinabalu said:
There was quite a smear campaign waged in many places against Jeremy Corbyn. It's plain silly not to acknowledge this.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue is that the others weren't taken out of context or Tory smears either. Corbyn was just genuinely that awful as was being said and Salisbury made it crystal clear.kinabalu said:
Yes. That was Corbyn's worst moment. It was very damaging and unlike with many of his controversies there was no viable defence of "taken out of context" or "tory smear" or "providing robust challenge to reactionary groupthink". It was obviously Putin and Putin is a horrible little man. Jeremy should have simply joined in the condemnation and preferably with gusto. What he did instead was like collecting up a load of putative GE votes and casually tossing them into the bin. It was an absolute gift to the enemy. It's hard enough for Labour to win elections in this strange country of ours that seems to fetishize inequality and privilege without the leader going out of his way to lose them.TheScreamingEagles said:It was Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury that destroyed Corbyn's rating irrevocably.
I think every party in the Commons, from the Tories, most of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, the Irish mobs, and Greens all said it was the Russians, but not Jez.
By viable defence I think you mean face saving excuse.
Look, people can respectably make the case that Corbyn was anti-semitic, not the brightest, not much of a patriot, wedded to an outmoded 1970s view of the world, rigid and closed-minded, incompetent, weak, unable to manage conflict. Just generally unfit to be PM or even a party leader.
All of the above and more can be argued and I would defend him or not, often not, based on my own perceptions. I'm no fan.
But you can't - you simply cannot - deny that he was relentlessly smeared by his opponents both inside and outside the party. It's a pure and simple fact.
Anyone who won't acknowledge this is a bad faith partisan softhead.
I simply offered a counter-point. I voted for a Labour candidate but I was far from a supporter of Corbyn. I just didn't want some nameless Tory nobody representing my constituency rather than a good local MP with a fine track record. If you can't see the logic there then maybe you need to check your partisanship.0 -
Mr. Gate, 'least bad' rather than 'best'.
Edited extra bit: in a binary contest with Corbyn.1
This discussion has been closed.