politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB competitions results
Comments
-
The 2020 election has the prospect of being a total shambles for Labour far in excess of present reasoned predictions.ydoethur said:
In 1983 they also won 41 seats in Scotland out of 72 - a lead of 20 over the Conservatives. That's a redoubt that has gone. Bridgend, Wrexham, possibly Delyn all look pretty vulnerable to me anyway (although if Delyn becomes more marginal, it might make Chester and some of the Liverpool seats safer).HYUFD said:
Indeed, in 1983 Foot won 209 seats, Ed Miliband won 232 seats in 2015. That means the Tories could win at least 20 seats from Labour if Corbyn bombs. As well as retaking the seats Ed Miliband gained the likes of Bridgend, Walsall North, Wrexham were all Labour in 2010 and 2015 but Tory in 1983ydoethur said:
List here if you want it:HYUFD said:
I think Tory target seats may be more appropriate if Corbyn stays in chargePlatoSays said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
Could see the first ten going blue if Corbyn is Labour leader.
It is certainly not inconceivable that Labour could end up with below 190 seats with Corbyn as leader. It depends on where the vote is distributed. My guess would be it will be heavily concentrated in Liverpool, parts of London, the Durham/Tyneside area, West Yorkshire and the South Wales Valleys, with a fairly solid handful in Birmingham and Manchester as well. But I can't really see many other places that a left-wing Labour party will even hold its own, never mind advance. In 1983, they held just three seats south of the Wash/Bristol Channel line outside London (Bristol South, Thurrock and Ipswich - and they lost the last two in 1987) - any bets on them getting none at all south of Birmingham in 2020?
With Corbyn "leading" Labour they will be reduced to redoubts in London and their stronger heartlands. The suburbs will have gone as will many industrial towns of the midlands and north. Scotland will remain lost and the Tories will chip away in Wales.
It will be a very harsh lesson for Labour to learn .... again, but learnt it they must.
0 -
The bus is heading for a cliff.tyson said:Nick- I can't help but think that Corbyn's election today is anything but good for British politics. So what, he wants to change PMQ's. I'm enjoying today's thread here immensely.
I love the fact that the Labour party is led by someone who really harboured no long term ambitions. Corbyn is really quite remarkable- he is debunking and tearing up all the known rules on British politics. I don't know where its all heading, but I'm enjoying the Corbyn ride, and I'm well and truly on his bus.NickPalmer said:
Very different now. Supporters of Liz Kendall got friendly cheers at the Islington N nomination meeting, with a couple of comments on the same lines as Jeremy's remarks today - "we don't agree with you but good on you for standing up for what you think".tyson said:That was 1980's Labour party politics for you. My own constituency party split in 1984 because we couldn't cope with each other.
AndyJS said:"I was a long-standing member of the North Islington Labour party when he was selected in February 1982 and I still bear the scars. Corbyn’s victory was achieved as a result of a relentless campaign involving all strands of the ultra-left. Local working-class trade unionists were hounded out of the party and zero tolerance shown to anyone of a more moderate opinion. Following Corbyn’s victory, and the debacle of the 1983 general election, the remodeled North Islington Labour party took vicarious pleasure in supporting the miners’ strike. They were comfortable with the working class providing they could keep them at a distance.
No one ever looked forward to going to a meeting of the North Islington Labour party. There was a running fight between two hostile factions that frequently spilled over into aggression: on one occasion police were summoned to calm a situation that had arisen at the annual general meeting of the women’s section."
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/09/10/the-emergence-of-jeremy-corbyn/0 -
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?0 -
If you want to take it further:Sunil_Prasannan said:
That means Foot only won 168 seats in England & Wales.ydoethur said:
In 1983 they also won 41 seats in Scotland out of 72 - a lead of 20 over the Conservatives. That's a redoubt that has gone. Bridgend, Wrexham, possibly Delyn all look pretty vulnerable to me anyway (although if Delyn becomes more marginal, it might make Chester and some of the Liverpool seats safer).HYUFD said:
Indeed, in 1983 Foot won 209 seats, Ed Miliband won 232 seats in 2015. That means the Tories could win at least 20 seats from Labour if Corbyn bombs. As well as retaking the seats Ed Miliband gained the likes of Bridgend, Walsall North, Wrexham were all Labour in 2010 and 2015 but Tory in 1983ydoethur said:
List here if you want it:HYUFD said:
I think Tory target seats may be more appropriate if Corbyn stays in chargePlatoSays said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
Could see the first ten going blue if Corbyn is Labour leader.
Super Ed won 231!
In 1983 Foot won 147 seats in England. Ed Miliband won 206.
However, there is no way on God's green earth that Corbyn could possibly hold 206 seats in England. 147 would be more like it.
Added to a likely 15-20 seats in Wales and we come up with the sort of desperate numbers Hague and Major achieved.0 -
You do realise that he doesn't have a majority and therefore can't change PMQs. The Tories will not play ball, and if Corbyn doesn't turn up, he'll be treated like Roy Hattersley on HIGNFY.tyson said:Nick- I can't help but think that Corbyn's election today is anything but good for British politics. So what, he wants to change PMQ's. I'm enjoying today's thread here immensely.
I love the fact that the Labour party is led by someone who really harboured no long term ambitions. Corbyn is really quite remarkable- he is debunking and tearing up all the known rules on British politics. I don't know where its all heading, but I'm enjoying the Corbyn ride, and I'm well and truly on his bus.NickPalmer said:
Very different now. Supporters of Liz Kendall got friendly cheers at the Islington N nomination meeting, with a couple of comments on the same lines as Jeremy's remarks today - "we don't agree with you but good on you for standing up for what you think".tyson said:That was 1980's Labour party politics for you. My own constituency party split in 1984 because we couldn't cope with each other.
AndyJS said:"I was a long-standing member of the North Islington Labour party when he was selected in February 1982 and I still bear the scars. Corbyn’s victory was achieved as a result of a relentless campaign involving all strands of the ultra-left. Local working-class trade unionists were hounded out of the party and zero tolerance shown to anyone of a more moderate opinion. Following Corbyn’s victory, and the debacle of the 1983 general election, the remodeled North Islington Labour party took vicarious pleasure in supporting the miners’ strike. They were comfortable with the working class providing they could keep them at a distance.
No one ever looked forward to going to a meeting of the North Islington Labour party. There was a running fight between two hostile factions that frequently spilled over into aggression: on one occasion police were summoned to calm a situation that had arisen at the annual general meeting of the women’s section."
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/09/10/the-emergence-of-jeremy-corbyn/0 -
Does anyone believe that there is any possible way that this ends without the PLP forming a new party at Westminster (probably with more than half of the current PLP joiing it)?
I can't see any way to avoid this, not with such a staunch backing for Corbyn by Labour members.0 -
Over five years? If he had won months before a GE, then possibly. I have said before on here that there will be some kind of JC honeymoon with voters.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?0 -
I will probably rejoin the Tory Party in the new year, although Corbyn is unlikely to win he is too dangerous to be dismissed either, now the LDs have picked Farron they are well to my left and UKIP is too populist and isolationist for meSeanT said:Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
0 -
Malc
"http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl"
Thanlks for this. I'm starting to like Corbyn more and more. I suppose a 48 sheet on Cambridge Circus is out of the question?0 -
I think your analysis is slightly flawed but, to be honest, I don't really want to spend time trying to defend the Sinn Fein IRA because your post is only slightly flawed and in general I have nothing but disdain for them.ydoethur said:
Agree with the point re Argentinian aggression. However, not quite so sure about the second.
...0 -
I agree Corbyn won't lead the charge. But that's the point, any of the other three would have fought the corner. Now "remain" looks a bit drify - no Labour, weak LDs and fronted by ex new labourites plus if Cameron fronts it too much, Corbyn could be tempted to put some effort in to helping him lose.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure Corbyn leading the charge is going to have that big a positive impact!Alanbrooke said:
On the other hand the chance of a leave vote has just ticked up a bit.rcs1000 said:I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40
Lab 20
UKIP 20
LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)
I think "events" will determine the result of the EU vote. Out will likely win if we see Grexit or Greek implosion, a worsening of the Syria refugee crisis, or Hunchman's up and coming Eurozone debt crisis mark 3. (The last of which I'm not a big believer in: there are many, many other places I see as much more vulnerable to a debt crisis than the Eurozone right now.)
Alternatively, if Syria is largely forgotten by next summer, and the Eurozone economies continue to climb out of their hole, and the UK is doing 3% GDP growth... then it'll likely be "In". Why rock the boat?0 -
LD's on TWENTY? Or is that a typo and you meant TWO or perhaps ZERO?rcs1000 said:I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40
Lab 20
UKIP 20
LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)0 -
SKY News showing the good old clenched fist accompanying the Red Flag. Brilliant. And Corbyn's first act? To proclaim pacifism in the face of aggression.
If all Kendall can offer is silly giggles in the face of this then there is not much future for her.
0 -
There is no reason why 1983 is a magical floor for the Labour Party that it can not go below. That has been assumed as surely they'd never have worse circumstances than that but Corbyn isn't Foot. He's worse than Foot.
There's every possibility that Corbyn could do worse than Foot did in England and Wales, and as bad as Miliband did in Scotland. Labour 150-175 seat band looks quite possible.0 -
For Christ's sake Roger, your inability to publicly stick to an opinion for more than a couple of days is worse than Tyson. It's not as if the discovery that Corbyn was a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner can have come as a surprise to you!Roger said:HYUFD
"http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl"
Thanlks for this. I'm starting to like Corbyn more and more. I suppose a 48 sheet on Cambridge Circus is out of the question?0 -
I agree.SeanT said:Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
0 -
On another note - Dair's quite a good poster when he strays away from Scotland and posts sense
0 -
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.0 -
Or has just driven under a low bridge and sliced off what remained of the top deck.
OT What is going on with Vanilla? It keeps letting me in and the comment box disappears. I'll have more email addresses than a Nigerian spammer at this rate, if I have to create a new sign-on everytime this happens.rottenborough said:
The bus is heading for a cliff.tyson said:Nick- I can't help but think that Corbyn's election today is anything but good for British politics. So what, he wants to change PMQ's. I'm enjoying today's thread here immensely.
I love the fact that the Labour party is led by someone who really harboured no long term ambitions. Corbyn is really quite remarkable- he is debunking and tearing up all the known rules on British politics. I don't know where its all heading, but I'm enjoying the Corbyn ride, and I'm well and truly on his bus.NickPalmer said:
Very different now. Supporters of Liz Kendall got friendly cheers at the Islington N nomination meeting, with a couple of comments on the same lines as Jeremy's remarks today - "we don't agree with you but good on you for standing up for what you think".tyson said:That was 1980's Labour party politics for you. My own constituency party split in 1984 because we couldn't cope with each other.
AndyJS said:"I was a long-standing member of the North Islington Labour party when he was selected in February 1982 and I still bear the scars. Corbyn’s victory was achieved as a result of a relentless campaign involving all strands of the ultra-left. Local working-class trade unionists were hounded out of the party and zero tolerance shown to anyone of a more moderate opinion. Following Corbyn’s victory, and the debacle of the 1983 general election, the remodeled North Islington Labour party took vicarious pleasure in supporting the miners’ strike. They were comfortable with the working class providing they could keep them at a distance.
No one ever looked forward to going to a meeting of the North Islington Labour party. There was a running fight between two hostile factions that frequently spilled over into aggression: on one occasion police were summoned to calm a situation that had arisen at the annual general meeting of the women’s section."
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/09/10/the-emergence-of-jeremy-corbyn/0 -
Cameron defeated two hopelessly inadequate Labour leaders who were not not credible, certainly not charismatic, and not likeable.
Now, you have Mr Corbyn- sure a lightning rod for the pbCOM Tory brigade who appear to be stuck in the past of the Falklands and the IRA.
Corbyn is likeable, and charismatic and believable. The Tories need a different schtick than simply talking about the Falklands and the IRA.RobD said:
Cameron has been labeled as an out of touch posh old Etonian for the past decade. Oh look, he just won a majority. People don't care.malcolmg said:LOL, and idiots on here think Baw face will have an easy time of it..............
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl0 -
If Cameron still leads the Tories, Corbyn Labour and Farage UKIP and post EU ref I could see something likeJonathan said:
LD's on TWENTY? Or is that a typo and you meant TWO or perhaps ZERO?rcs1000 said:I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40
Lab 20
UKIP 20
LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)
Tories 35%
Labour 25%
UKIP 20%
LD 10%
There are not enough metropolitan, centrist europhiles for the LDs unfortunately and Farron is no Roy Jenkins0 -
Would English defectors be welcomed by the SNP, as an affiliated party of the centre left? It is not as absurd as some of the things that we are seeing!Dair said:Does anyone believe that there is any possible way that this ends without the PLP forming a new party at Westminster (probably with more than half of the current PLP joiing it)?
I can't see any way to avoid this, not with such a staunch backing for Corbyn by Labour members.0 -
The electorate has changed markedly in the 30 years. Old, solid working class support for Labour could be relied to some extent in Foot's day, whoever the leader. I don't think that applies anymore as Crudas keeps trying to tell them all.Philip_Thompson said:There is no reason why 1983 is a magical floor for the Labour Party that it can not go below. That has been assumed as surely they'd never have worse circumstances than that but Corbyn isn't Foot. He's worse than Foot.
There's every possibility that Corbyn could do worse than Foot did in England and Wales, and as bad as Miliband did in Scotland. Labour 150-175 seat band looks quite possible.0 -
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.0 -
I can't see that happening. In the 1980s, Foot won by a fairly slender margin on a second ballot and there was an element of 'we wuz robbed' on the right of the Labour party. There was also, with Thatcher heading right, space to occupy on the vacated centre ground that would attract MPs, voters and financial support.Dair said:Does anyone believe that there is any possible way that this ends without the PLP forming a new party at Westminster (probably with more than half of the current PLP joiing it)?
I can't see any way to avoid this, not with such a staunch backing for Corbyn by Labour members.
Corbyn has won by a huge margin, Osborne and Cameron are pretty well dominating the centre despite all the divisive rhetoric on both sides, the fate of the SDP and LDP is stark in everyone's minds, and the amount of money available for a breakaway party would be minuscule.
A more likely scenario is some kind of semi-independent caucus within the Labour movement itself, along the lines of the Monday Club in the Conservatives. But that of course would be unlikely to last long now the threat of deselection hangs over all MPs if boundary changes go through.
The only realistic hope for such people is if Corbyn's leadership is pretty short. As @david_herdson noted earlier, he's getting on a bit. However, he looks pretty fit and more worryingly, appears to have swallowed his own messianic rhetoric. I don't think he'll go while he can talk.
Which means short of some sudden and unforeseen accident or disaster, which I don't think anyone here would wish on a political opponent, Labour's moderates are quite simply fucked.
EDIT - in reply to your other post, fair enough, we'll disagree. You could very well be right - certainly the view of the thread is with you not me - but Kirchner's about to leave office and I'm not convinced whoever succeeds her will need the Falklands issue as a distraction tactic so much as she did, so I think it may fade just as NI becomes a crisis again. I wouldn't have accused you of defending the IRA!0 -
One hopes so. However, I am not convinced by Chilcotts' competence or integrity - the report would have been published years ago if he had both in any significant measure.foxinsoxuk said:
The most difficult confidence tricksters to deal with are those that believe their own lies. I think Blair was and remains one of those. Such liars are much more convincing and create false facts to sustain their lies, such as the infamous dodgy dossier.HurstLlama said:
Wotcha, Doc, I also heard Blair speak at about that time and I agree he had charisma and projected a vision. In the same way that a confidence trickster does. I had him marked down as a snake oil salesman from then on. Future events only proved me correct so at least I was not left feeling disappointed at the slimy git's self-serving actions and lies. Many were, which possibly accounts for the over-reaction and that, maybe, has led to today's appointment.foxinsoxuk said:
I saw Blair speak to an audience of East Midlands activists in 96. He had real charisma then, and a clear vision. Pity he sold his soul to the devil, he had real potential.HurstLlama said:
In 1994 you were a babe in arms, in 2002 you were eight years old. How do you know?The_Apocalypse said:
... it's also about having the communication skills, charm, and charisma of Blair 1994 - 2002. Kendall has none of these things.
Mind you, I think when Corbyn finds out what it means to play with the big boys his reputation as a fearless champion of the left might take a bit of a hammering to. It isn't difficult to imagine Corbyn whilst LOTO leading a demonstration against something outside parliament whilst the topic is actually being discussed inside. I wouldn't hesitate too long before I put a wager on Corbyn's main strategy being that of brave Sir Robin.
The Chilcott debate is going to spit-roast Blair from both sides of the house when it is finally out.
Going back to the 1990s and the Labour operation. I think history will eventually show what a malignant presence Campbell and Mandelson were on the the body politic. I left the Civil Service in 1996 but even then their presence was being felt, bullying didn't come into it. Lots of people at senior level were cowed by that duo's threats and manipulations and in the media it was, from what I have heard, even worse.
Blair and his dreadful acolytes, which included Brown and his gang, did enormous and probably irreparable harm to the the political fabric of the UK. The most ghastly thing though is not that Campbell and Mandelson have personally made a great deal of money from their bullying and lies, it is that that Cameron seems to be happy to play on the field that they created.0 -
They didn't give them away, Argentina didn't exist before they became British. We took them off the Spanish.Luckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.
0 -
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes0
-
I think the HM Governments view is that the islands were never not British during the war.Luckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.0 -
4.5% means Kendall's career as a frontbencher is over.flightpath01 said:SKY News showing the good old clenched fist accompanying the Red Flag. Brilliant. And Corbyn's first act? To proclaim pacifism in the face of aggression.
If all Kendall can offer is silly giggles in the face of this then there is not much future for her.0 -
What is Corbyn's view about independence for Scotland?
And how about his view on Gibraltar. does he want to give them to Spain?0 -
But then I'm sure Argentina had a prison colony on there at one time that we booted off - this being the main substance in their claim.alex. said:
They didn't give them away, Argentina didn't exist before they became British. We took them off the Spanish.Luckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.0 -
Welcome back to the Big Tent.HYUFD said:
I will probably rejoin the Tory Party in the new year, although Corbyn is unlikely to win he is too dangerous to be dismissed either, now the LDs have picked Farron they are well to my left and UKIP is too populist and isolationist for meSeanT said:Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
Some might even call it a Marquee......0 -
Falklands isn't really the past if Corbyn got anywhere near becoming Leader. The only question is whether Argentina would have to invade to get hold of them.tyson said:Cameron defeated two hopelessly inadequate Labour leaders who were not not credible, certainly not charismatic, and not likeable.
Now, you have Mr Corbyn- sure a lightning rod for the pbCOM Tory brigade who appear to be stuck in the past of the Falklands and the IRA.
Corbyn is likeable, and charismatic and believable. The Tories need a different schtick than simply talking about the Falklands and the IRA.RobD said:
Cameron has been labeled as an out of touch posh old Etonian for the past decade. Oh look, he just won a majority. People don't care.malcolmg said:LOL, and idiots on here think Baw face will have an easy time of it..............
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl
As for the IRA, well apparently they haven't gone away...0 -
If CCHQ created a horror tickbox as long as both your arms - Corbyn must be close to marking every one of them with his illustrious 40yrs in politics.
He's is indeed far worse than Foot. In fact, I think it's a bit of an insult to compare them at all.Philip_Thompson said:There is no reason why 1983 is a magical floor for the Labour Party that it can not go below. That has been assumed as surely they'd never have worse circumstances than that but Corbyn isn't Foot. He's worse than Foot.
There's every possibility that Corbyn could do worse than Foot did in England and Wales, and as bad as Miliband did in Scotland. Labour 150-175 seat band looks quite possible.0 -
The 'past' of the IRA? Have you not seen what's going on in NI?tyson said:Cameron defeated two hopelessly inadequate Labour leaders who were not not credible, certainly not charismatic, and not likeable.
Now, you have Mr Corbyn- sure a lightning rod for the pbCOM Tory brigade who appear to be stuck in the past of the Falklands and the IRA.
Corbyn is likeable, and charismatic and believable. The Tories need a different schtick than simply talking about the Falklands and the IRA.RobD said:
Cameron has been labeled as an out of touch posh old Etonian for the past decade. Oh look, he just won a majority. People don't care.malcolmg said:LOL, and idiots on here think Baw face will have an easy time of it..............
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl0 -
After the way she's been treated I wouldn't blame her if she defected. Would the Lib Dems take her? They currently have zero female MPs.Dair said:
4.5% means Kendall's career as a frontbencher is over.flightpath01 said:SKY News showing the good old clenched fist accompanying the Red Flag. Brilliant. And Corbyn's first act? To proclaim pacifism in the face of aggression.
If all Kendall can offer is silly giggles in the face of this then there is not much future for her.0 -
I've a vague memory of reading he's happy for a "negotiated settlement" on Gibraltar. Probably some sort of shared sovereignty.David_Evershed said:What is Corbyn's view about independence for Scotland?
And how about his view on Gibraltar. does he want to give them to Spain?0 -
THere was an 18th century British colony, which failed. The Argentians put an unofficial colony on there in the 1830s, which was evicted by the Royal Navy. Which side had the right of it in that particular dispute has bedevilled the question of who owns the Falklands ever since.Luckyguy1983 said:
But then I'm sure Argentina had a prison colony on there at one time that we booted off - this being the main substance in their claim.alex. said:
They didn't give them away, Argentina didn't exist before they became British. We took them off the Spanish.Luckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.0 -
They are going to need some backers with deep pockets. But they can at least walk away from the debts....Dair said:Does anyone believe that there is any possible way that this ends without the PLP forming a new party at Westminster (probably with more than half of the current PLP joiing it)?
I can't see any way to avoid this, not with such a staunch backing for Corbyn by Labour members.
J K Rowling better get writing the Harry Potter prequels!0 -
Indeed, I briefly flirted with Clegg's LDs in 2015 at the national level but am now back in the Cameron campMarqueeMark said:
Welcome back to the Big Tent.HYUFD said:
I will probably rejoin the Tory Party in the new year, although Corbyn is unlikely to win he is too dangerous to be dismissed either, now the LDs have picked Farron they are well to my left and UKIP is too populist and isolationist for meSeanT said:Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
Some might even call it a Marquee......0 -
I think Foot might agree. OK, he was CND, because he genuinely believed nuclear weapons were evil. Fair enough, so do many people. But he certainly wasn't a dogmatic pacifist and he was as firm in opposing the Argentinian invasion as ever Thatcher was, backing the war with commendable national loyalty and no little risk to his own position within his powerbase. Moreover, he was a man of great ability and experience, and even his opponents liked and often respected him however flatly he disagreed with him.Plato_Says said:If CCHQ created a horror tickbox as long as both your arms - Corbyn must be close to marking every one of them with his illustrious 40yrs in politics.
He's is indeed far worse than Foot. In fact, I think it's a bit of an insult to compare them at all.Philip_Thompson said:There is no reason why 1983 is a magical floor for the Labour Party that it can not go below. That has been assumed as surely they'd never have worse circumstances than that but Corbyn isn't Foot. He's worse than Foot.
There's every possibility that Corbyn could do worse than Foot did in England and Wales, and as bad as Miliband did in Scotland. Labour 150-175 seat band looks quite possible.
Corbyn, however...0 -
Does the election of Corbyn mean:
a) He is outside the tent pissing in
b) He is inside the tent pissing out or
c) He is inside the tent pissing in?0 -
Re The Falklands.
The keep the Falklands British page on Facebook has always said that if any future PM tried to do that.
The islanders would use the right to self determination to declare independence.0 -
Do we have polls of the public on Corbyn's charisma and likability ?tyson said:Cameron defeated two hopelessly inadequate Labour leaders who were not not credible, certainly not charismatic, and not likeable.
Now, you have Mr Corbyn- sure a lightning rod for the pbCOM Tory brigade who appear to be stuck in the past of the Falklands and the IRA.
Corbyn is likeable, and charismatic and believable. The Tories need a different schtick than simply talking about the Falklands and the IRA.RobD said:
Cameron has been labeled as an out of touch posh old Etonian for the past decade. Oh look, he just won a majority. People don't care.malcolmg said:LOL, and idiots on here think Baw face will have an easy time of it..............
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl
0 -
Well it is certainly possible but it would interfere with the attempts to build alliances with parties like Yorkshire First, the Northumbrians Mebyon and Plaid. Although in all honesty none of those other parties show a coherent enough political strategy to make it worth their while. Mebyon and Plaid are abject failures, building YF or the Northumbrians will take decades.foxinsoxuk said:
Would English defectors be welcomed by the SNP, as an affiliated party of the centre left? It is not as absurd as some of the things that we are seeing!Dair said:Does anyone believe that there is any possible way that this ends without the PLP forming a new party at Westminster (probably with more than half of the current PLP joiing it)?
I can't see any way to avoid this, not with such a staunch backing for Corbyn by Labour members.
Sturgeon and the SNP are resolutely pragmatic, they might be willing to do so. There may be avenues of communication at Westminster but I suspect that many of the friendships that may have developed between the new SNP MPs and Labour would be with those more likely to stick with a Corynbite PLP than those who will split.0 -
Plenty of time for that...tyson said:Cameron defeated two hopelessly inadequate Labour leaders who were not not credible, certainly not charismatic, and not likeable.
Now, you have Mr Corbyn- sure a lightning rod for the pbCOM Tory brigade who appear to be stuck in the past of the Falklands and the IRA.
Corbyn is likeable, and charismatic and believable. The Tories need a different schtick than simply talking about the Falklands and the IRA.
The main "schtick" will of course be that you can't trust this extreme left-wing nutcase with your money, your job, your home, your savings, etc...
But we've got a few years of fun to get out of the way in the meantime.
0 -
d) It's the equivalent of pissing on the electorate with your flies still zipped upDavid_Evershed said:Does the election of Corbyn mean:
a) He is outside the big tent pissing in
b) He is inside the big tent pissing out or
c) He is inside the big tent pissing in?
It gives you a warm feeling but repels everyone else.0 -
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
0 -
I knew going to the pub was a bad mistake for him...David_Evershed said:Does the election of Corbyn mean:
a) He is outside the tent pissing in
b) He is inside the tent pissing out or
c) He is inside the tent pissing in?0 -
Pulps- the Falklands conflict occurred before you were born. It's like bringing up the Boar War to JackW. Why is it so toxic?Pulpstar said:
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
0 -
Indeed I might join Tory Party for the first time. It would be nice if they gave a special rate for pensioners. Do they?HYUFD said:
I will probably rejoin the Tory Party in the new year, although Corbyn is unlikely to win he is too dangerous to be dismissed either, now the LDs have picked Farron they are well to my left and UKIP is too populist and isolationist for meSeanT said:Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
Corbyn is leading a take over of the Labour Party by the red flag waving the fanatics of the stop the war stop the austerity stop the G7 stop the globalised world I want to get off foam flecked crazies.
He does not want to govern Britain he wants to destroy it.0 -
I hope you are right & that it will only be a honeymoon.rottenborough said:
Over five years? If he had won months before a GE, then possibly. I have said before on here that there will be some kind of JC honeymoon with voters.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
My father fought in the Battle of the Bore, when the communists were trying to take over the Trades Unions. An ordinary mill worker, doing an ordinary job, doing his best for his fellow-workers through his Trade Union.
And gradually (maybe quite quickly) it became a battleground. Meetings in smoke-filled rooms, mind-numbingly prolonged past all reason until all the normal chaps got fed up & went home. Then the real decisions were made, by people with an agenda which cared nothing for the mill-workers they supposedly represented.
You see, first there are the chaps who sound so reasonable, so sympathetic; but behind them come the people whose only interest in democracy is to overturn it.0 -
Farage needs to go asap and get replaced by someone like Paul Nuttall.HYUFD said:
If Cameron still leads the Tories, Corbyn Labour and Farage UKIP and post EU ref I could see something likeJonathan said:
LD's on TWENTY? Or is that a typo and you meant TWO or perhaps ZERO?rcs1000 said:I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40
Lab 20
UKIP 20
LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)
Tories 35%
Labour 25%
UKIP 20%
LD 10%
There are not enough metropolitan, centrist europhiles for the LDs unfortunately and Farron is no Roy Jenkins
0 -
The party spread suggests this website is nowhere near as biased to the right as some claim.0
-
Well, we'll see. Not sure Corbyn plans to stay until 2020.JackW said:
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate opted for the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
At present Labour has the advantage that in England there is isn't a viable alternative on the Left.
0 -
I don't know but d) The Tories are just pissing themselves....David_Evershed said:Does the election of Corbyn mean:
a) He is outside the tent pissing in
b) He is inside the tent pissing out or
c) He is inside the tent pissing in?0 -
I thought the 1830s attempt that was quickly removed was by the Spanish not Argentinians.ydoethur said:
THere was an 18th century British colony, which failed. The Argentians put an unofficial colony on there in the 1830s, which was evicted by the Royal Navy. Which side had the right of it in that particular dispute has bedevilled the question of who owns the Falklands ever since.Luckyguy1983 said:
But then I'm sure Argentina had a prison colony on there at one time that we booted off - this being the main substance in their claim.alex. said:
They didn't give them away, Argentina didn't exist before they became British. We took them off the Spanish.Luckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.0 -
Lucky Gut 83 just for your info .. The UK went to war with Argentina to regain the Islands after the invasion..we lost a lot of good people in that needless conflict..initiated by Argentina as a diversion from its dire political situation....then you were born..0
-
Well, it's a point of view. However, since their separation from Argentina would end tomorrow were the RAF presence at Mount Pleasant to be withdrawn, or the Royal Navy be unable to guarantee a quarantine zone, it would be rather an empty gesture.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:Re The Falklands.
The keep the Falklands British page on Facebook has always said that if any future PM tried to do that.
The islanders would use the right to self determination to declare independence.
I agree with Dair about the Falklands to the extent that they will be very unhappy at Corbyn's election. I just don't think events in Argentina make it a serious issue at the moment.0 -
French and BritishLuckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.
Spanish and British
Spanish
Abandoned
Argentinian (as United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata)
British0 -
Er, in 1996 Blair Mandelson and Campell were in opposition, but I agree. Politicisation of management in the NHS and Police were similarly affected. Armed forces too from what I hear.HurstLlama said:
One hopes so. However, I am not convinced by Chilcotts' competence or integrity - the report would have been published years ago if he had both in any significant measure.foxinsoxuk said:
The most difficult confidence tricksters to deal with are those that believe their own lies. I think Blair was and remains one of those. Such liars are much more convincing and create false facts to sustain their lies, such as the infamous dodgy dossier.HurstLlama said:
Wotcha, Doc, I also heard Blair speak at about that time and I agree he had charisma and projected a vision. In the same way that a confidence trickster does. I had him marked down as a snake oil salesman from then on. Future events only proved me correct so at least I was not left feeling disappointed at the slimy git's self-serving actions and lies. Many were, which possibly accounts for the over-reaction and that, maybe, has led to today's appointment.foxinsoxuk said:
I saw Blair speak to an audience of East Midlands activists in 96. He had real charisma then, and a clear vision. Pity he sold his soul to the devil, he had real potential.HurstLlama said:
In 1994 you were a babe in arms, in 2002 you were eight years old. How do you know?The_Apocalypse said:
... it's also about having the communication skills, charm, and charisma of Blair 1994 - 2002. Kendall has none of these things.
Mind you, I think when Corbyn finds out what it means to play .
The Chilcott debate is going to spit-roast Blair from both sides of the house when it is finally out.
Going back to the 1990s and the Labour operation. I think history will eventually show what a malignant presence Campbell and Mandelson were on the the body politic. I left the Civil Service in 1996 but even then their presence was being felt, bullying didn't come into it. Lots of people at senior level were cowed by that duo's threats and manipulations and in the media it was, from what I have heard, even worse.
Blair and his dreadful acolytes, which included Brown and his gang, did enormous and probably irreparable harm to the the political fabric of the UK. The most ghastly thing though is not that Campbell and Mandelson have personally made a great deal of money from their bullying and lies, it is that that Cameron seems to be happy to play on the field that they created.
It looks as if I am not going to be able to sneak off to Duxford next week, though sorely tempted. May try the Jerome trick, but unlikely to be granted shore leave. Have a good time!0 -
Yes, if Out loses Nuttall would be better placed to lead UKIP forward as Sturgeon was the SNPMP_SE said:
Farage needs to go asap and get replaced by someone like Paul Nuttall.HYUFD said:
If Cameron still leads the Tories, Corbyn Labour and Farage UKIP and post EU ref I could see something likeJonathan said:
LD's on TWENTY? Or is that a typo and you meant TWO or perhaps ZERO?rcs1000 said:I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40
Lab 20
UKIP 20
LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)
Tories 35%
Labour 25%
UKIP 20%
LD 10%
There are not enough metropolitan, centrist europhiles for the LDs unfortunately and Farron is no Roy Jenkins0 -
Where did he say he would do that if elected PM. He cannot help if Argentina jump on the bandwagon.Dair said:
The problem is that being a posh boy is not really toxic, it's certainly not toxic outside of Labour's core vote.malcolmg said:LOL, and idiots on here think Baw face will have an easy time of it..............
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl
On the other hand, while there is genuine public support for some Corbyn positions such as Palestine, Trident, even support for Irish Nationalism has some non-negligible support given the UKs open door to Irish immigrants for 100 years.
But stuff like giving the Falklands to the Argies is going to be utterly toxic, it is genuinely treasonous.0 -
Indeed, I would ask local parties if they do a pensioner rateflightpath01 said:
Indeed I might join Tory Party for the first time. It would be nice if they gave a special rate for pensioners. Do they?HYUFD said:
I will probably rejoin the Tory Party in the new year, although Corbyn is unlikely to win he is too dangerous to be dismissed either, now the LDs have picked Farron they are well to my left and UKIP is too populist and isolationist for meSeanT said:Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
Corbyn is leading a take over of the Labour Party by the red flag waving the fanatics of the stop the war stop the austerity stop the G7 stop the globalised world I want to get off foam flecked crazies.
He does not want to govern Britain he wants to destroy it.0 -
If Cameron still leads the Tories in 2020, 40% would be the minimum level of support he would get.MP_SE said:
Farage needs to go asap and get replaced by someone like Paul Nuttall.HYUFD said:
If Cameron still leads the Tories, Corbyn Labour and Farage UKIP and post EU ref I could see something likeJonathan said:
LD's on TWENTY? Or is that a typo and you meant TWO or perhaps ZERO?rcs1000 said:I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40
Lab 20
UKIP 20
LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)
Tories 35%
Labour 25%
UKIP 20%
LD 10%
There are not enough metropolitan, centrist europhiles for the LDs unfortunately and Farron is no Roy Jenkins
0 -
Dan Hodges and a Labour lady I didn't know, were talking about the complete trap they were now in as a Party. The MPs and the membership totally at odds with each other - and there's no prospect of a way out of this, as the vote was overwhelming.
They're talking two different languages.JackW said:
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.0 -
That's my understanding.Sandpit said:
Cameron will be there - and enjoying every damn minute of it!richardDodd said:If the LOTO does not turn up for PMQs then the PM can also decline to turn up..This must surely deprive all of the leaders of the other Political Parties from asking the PM pertinent questions...Back benchers will also be denied asking the PM direct and this would deprive their constituents of having their concerns put to the top politician. Not acceptable..Get your scared butt in there Corbyn or take the enormous flak..
As you say the primary role of PMQs is to allow the Members access to the PM directly, often to raise something local to their constituents and/or something of which the PM may not be aware that the Member thinks would be useful for him to know.
It is important for Parliament as a whole that this session continues, the Speaker will undoubtedly point at the empty bench where the LotO should be and call half a dozen more backbenchers (half of whom would be from the government side).
The rules of PMQ are that the Speaker starts with the first listed MP and works through the list. The convention is that the LOTO has the right to ask up to 6 questions at whatever point he* wants. He doesn't have to ask all of these (and I think Miliband played arounda bit with asking fewer than 6 to try and throw Cameron off his stride). So presumably if Corbyn doesn't turn up or doesn't want to ask questions then the Speaker will just get further down the main list than he would otherwise do.
* I would have put he/she but this is the Labour Party we are talking about0 -
The Argentines never had a colony on the Falklands. The islands have been British since before Argentina ever existed.0
-
I know the history of the era very well thanks, I have read Margaret Thatcher's accounts among others. I was not referring to Argentina 'giving us the islands back' after the Falklands conflict I was referring to them giving us the islands when we booted their rotten penal colony off there back in the day.richardDodd said:Lucky Gut 83 just for your info .. The UK went to war with Argentina to regain the Islands after the invasion..we lost a lot of good people in that needless conflict..initiated by Argentina as a diversion from its dire political situation....then you were born..
0 -
Yes, I thought so.Dair said:
French and BritishLuckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.
Spanish and British
Spanish
Abandoned
Argentinian (as United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata)
British0 -
No, definitely Argentina. It was a curious set-up all around - it seems to have been part privateer colony, part prison camp, part whaling and sealing business. Technically, it was the work of one man - however, the Argentinians, possibly retrospectively, declared him Governor and said he had been ruling the islands for them when the British kicked them out, so they could issue a formal protest.Philip_Thompson said:
I thought the 1830s attempt that was quickly removed was by the Spanish not Argentinians.ydoethur said:
THere was an 18th century British colony, which failed. The Argentians put an unofficial colony on there in the 1830s, which was evicted by the Royal Navy. Which side had the right of it in that particular dispute has bedevilled the question of who owns the Falklands ever since.Luckyguy1983 said:
But then I'm sure Argentina had a prison colony on there at one time that we booted off - this being the main substance in their claim.alex. said:
They didn't give them away, Argentina didn't exist before they became British. We took them off the Spanish.Luckyguy1983 said:
Did they not give them BACK to us? I'm sure there was a British settlement there before Argentina even existed.Dair said:
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!richardDodd said:SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.0 -
Pretty much the only thing Corbyn opposes is Scottish Independence.alex. said:
I've a vague memory of reading he's happy for a "negotiated settlement" on Gibraltar. Probably some sort of shared sovereignty.David_Evershed said:What is Corbyn's view about independence for Scotland?
And how about his view on Gibraltar. does he want to give them to Spain?
The man is a cretin.0 -
In a war between a party membership and MPs, the membership will always win long term.Plato_Says said:Dan Hodges and a Labour lady I didn't know, were talking about the complete trap they were now in as a Party. The MPs and the membership totally at odds with each other - and there's no prospect of a way out of this, as the vote was overwhelming.
They're talking two different languages.JackW said:
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.0 -
d) PB pissing themselves with laughter.David_Evershed said:Does the election of Corbyn mean:
a) He is outside the tent pissing in
b) He is inside the tent pissing out or
c) He is inside the tent pissing in?
0 -
Charles... and the MSM and others will absolutely monster him.. and rightly so..0
-
He doesn't like ScotlandDavid_Evershed said:What is Corbyn's view about independence for Scotland?
And how about his view on Gibraltar. does he want to give them to Spain?0 -
Surely that staunch backing ensures they won't form a new party at Westminster? Corbyn has massive backing, so they won't carry support over, better to play the long game and wait him out. If he's a disaster, better to rebuild from a base that has hopefully learned the lesson.Dair said:Does anyone believe that there is any possible way that this ends without the PLP forming a new party at Westminster (probably with more than half of the current PLP joiing it)?
I can't see any way to avoid this, not with such a staunch backing for Corbyn by Labour members.
Indeed. I'm bemused such labels are treated as though they are politically significant, when at best they are merely amusing. I'm not saying people love Cameron, but clearly being a posh git does not ruin one's chances. I think Burnham tried too hard and inauthentically to go after that perceived weakness, what with all the Bullingdon Boys stuff, but it's just weak and lazy stuff. Plenty else to go after Cameron about.RobD said:
Cameron has been labeled as an out of touch posh old Etonian for the past decade. Oh look, he just won a majority. People don't care.malcolmg said:LOL, and idiots on here think Baw face will have an easy time of it..............
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-sharing-these-images-of-what-corbyn-and-cameron-were-up-to-in-the-1980s--ZygEn9bkZUl0 -
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.tyson said:Pulps- the Falklands conflict occurred before you were born. It's like bringing up the Boar War to JackW. Why is it so toxic?
Pulpstar said:Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
0 -
"Boar War" ??? - you telling big hairy porkies now ?!?tyson said:Pulps- the Falklands conflict occurred before you were born. It's like bringing up the Boar War to JackW. Why is it so toxic?
Pulpstar said:Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
0 -
I think the right are just noisier, particularly at the moment, which in fairness is actually the opposite to what is usually claimed about the internet and media in general being more left than reality.JEO said:The party spread suggests this website is nowhere near as biased to the right as some claim.
0 -
Sore-Loserman!rottenborough said:
The bus is heading for a cliff.tyson said:Nick- I can't help but think that Corbyn's election today is anything but good for British politics. So what, he wants to change PMQ's. I'm enjoying today's thread here immensely.
I love the fact that the Labour party is led by someone who really harboured no long term ambitions. Corbyn is really quite remarkable- he is debunking and tearing up all the known rules on British politics. I don't know where its all heading, but I'm enjoying the Corbyn ride, and I'm well and truly on his bus.NickPalmer said:
Very different now. Supporters of Liz Kendall got friendly cheers at the Islington N nomination meeting, with a couple of comments on the same lines as Jeremy's remarks today - "we don't agree with you but good on you for standing up for what you think".tyson said:That was 1980's Labour party politics for you. My own constituency party split in 1984 because we couldn't cope with each other.
AndyJS said:"I was a long-standing member of the North Islington Labour party when he was selected in February 1982 and I still bear the scars. Corbyn’s victory was achieved as a result of a relentless campaign involving all strands of the ultra-left. Local working-class trade unionists were hounded out of the party and zero tolerance shown to anyone of a more moderate opinion. Following Corbyn’s victory, and the debacle of the 1983 general election, the remodeled North Islington Labour party took vicarious pleasure in supporting the miners’ strike. They were comfortable with the working class providing they could keep them at a distance.
No one ever looked forward to going to a meeting of the North Islington Labour party. There was a running fight between two hostile factions that frequently spilled over into aggression: on one occasion police were summoned to calm a situation that had arisen at the annual general meeting of the women’s section."
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/09/10/the-emergence-of-jeremy-corbyn/0 -
IraqDair said:
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.tyson said:Pulps- the Falklands conflict occurred before you were born. It's like bringing up the Boar War to JackW. Why is it so toxic?
Pulpstar said:Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
0 -
@tyson
'The thing is that Cameron is such an arrogant twot that he'd refuse to be questioned by anyone other than the LOTO.'
Surprised by your ignorant comment.
It's nothing to do with Cameron,it's been the case whether Brown,Blair,Major,Thatcher or any other PM.
0 -
Inclined to agree.rcs1000 said:I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40
Lab 20
UKIP 20
LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)
There's no way that a lot of what's left of the core working class vote in Labour will accept Corbyn's views on foreign policy and immigration. It's just a question of where they land.
It won't just be the WWC either.
To imagine that the ethnic vote is uniform is flawed. There are plenty within this voting set that have no sympathy with some of the problems that emanate from the middle east and Islamic affairs, or from open door immigration.0 -
At what point do the rumours start on how much of the vote that Corbyn won of long standing members rather than the Jonathan come latelies?0
-
There doesn't need to be a viable alternative on the left for the Tories to remain in government.Jonathan said:
Well, we'll see. Not sure Corbyn plans to stay until 2020.JackW said:
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate opted for the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
At present Labour has the advantage that in England there is isn't a viable alternative on the Left.
0 -
I wonder what the former "Tories For Palmer" think of Dr Nick now endorsing Comrade Corbyn?JackW said:
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
0 -
Doc, I know who was in opposition in 1996, that was sort of the point - the malignant influence was already being felt.foxinsoxuk said:
Er, in 1996 Blair Mandelson and Campell were in opposition, but I agree. Politicisation of management in the NHS and Police were similarly affected. Armed forces too from what I hear.
It looks as if I am not going to be able to sneak off to Duxford next week, though sorely tempted. May try the Jerome trick, but unlikely to be granted shore leave. Have a good time!
As per the air show: its already too late. In fact it was already too late last Monday when I tried to buy tickets for Mr. Jessup and myself - all sold out. Bummer, and I had an overnight pink ticket too.0 -
Hodges:
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 47m47 minutes ago
Dear Corbyn supporters. You won. Congratulations. But some of us think it's a disaster for Labour. And we're going to say so. Sorry.0 -
I don't know the whole truth but I have to say this is one of my favourite political TV moments.foxinsoxuk said:
Er, in 1996 Blair Mandelson and Campell were in opposition, but I agree. Politicisation of management in the NHS and Police were similarly affected. Armed forces too from what I hear.HurstLlama said:
One hopes so. However, I am not convinced by Chilcotts' competence or integrity - the report would have been published years ago if he had both in any significant measure.foxinsoxuk said:
The Chilcott debate is going to spit-roast Blair from both sides of the house when it is finally out.HurstLlama said:
Wotcha, Doc, I also heard Blair speak at about that time and I agree he had charisma and projected a vision. In the same way that a confidence trickster does. I had him marked down as a snake oil salesman from then on. Future events only proved me correct so at least I was not left feeling disappointed at the slimy git's self-serving actions and lies. Many were, which possibly accounts for the over-reaction and that, maybe, has led to today's appointment.foxinsoxuk said:
I saw Blair speak to an audience of East Midlands activists in 96. He had real charisma then, and a clear vision. Pity he sold his soul to the devil, he had real potential.HurstLlama said:
In 1994 you were a babe in arms, in 2002 you were eight years old. How do you know?The_Apocalypse said:
... it's also about having the communication skills, charm, and charisma of Blair 1994 - 2002. Kendall has none of these things.
Mind you, I think when Corbyn finds out what it means to play .
Going back to the 1990s and the Labour operation. I think history will eventually show what a malignant presence Campbell and Mandelson were on the the body politic. I left the Civil Service in 1996 but even then their presence was being felt, bullying didn't come into it. Lots of people at senior level were cowed by that duo's threats and manipulations and in the media it was, from what I have heard, even worse.
Blair and his dreadful acolytes, which included Brown and his gang, did enormous and probably irreparable harm to the the political fabric of the UK. The most ghastly thing though is not that Campbell and Mandelson have personally made a great deal of money from their bullying and lies, it is that that Cameron seems to be happy to play on the field that they created.
It looks as if I am not going to be able to sneak off to Duxford next week, though sorely tempted. May try the Jerome trick, but unlikely to be granted shore leave. Have a good time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-QxBTR9_HU0 -
The Spanish name "Malvinas" actually comes from the French "Malouines" - meaning from (St.) Malo in France.
So anyone using the term "Malvinas" is actually indicating their recognition of French sovereignty!
Perish the thought!
0 -
So what else is new?rottenborough said:Hodges:
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 47m47 minutes ago
Dear Corbyn supporters. You won. Congratulations. But some of us think it's a disaster for Labour. And we're going to say so. Sorry.0 -
Bobby Jindal thinks Corbyn is a World Leader.
https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/status/6427196865183989760 -
Because outside of very rare circles, it's an easily understood issue where our intervention was heroic and unquestionably in the right (whatever qualms some people may have about the legalities of the situation, or whether it would be better for the Falklands to be under Argentine rule or not, them invading and occupying puts us on the moral high ground). Conceding ground to a nation which did that (albeit in different times) and never shuts up about how awful we are for not talking to them about giving them over ever since, is to tell the people that a rare instance of a foreign policy area which seems simple and easy to be patriotic and in the right, is in fact wrong, and thus toxic.tyson said:Pulps- the Falklands conflict occurred before you were born. It's like bringing up the Boar War to JackW. Why is it so toxic?
Pulpstar said:Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
0 -
Jack as TOTY I really do respect your views,you kept the faith before the GE, and you were correct then, and you are correct now.Plato_Says said:Dan Hodges and a Labour lady I didn't know, were talking about the complete trap they were now in as a Party. The MPs and the membership totally at odds with each other - and there's no prospect of a way out of this, as the vote was overwhelming.
They're talking two different languages.JackW said:
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.AnneJGP said:
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.JackW said:
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".Roger said:The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
Today has been a wonder to behold, and we have only just begun.
0 -
No sore losers in Scotland then.. except the 45ers.
.0 -
Abba tribute bands.NickPalmer said:
So what else is new?rottenborough said:Hodges:
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 47m47 minutes ago
Dear Corbyn supporters. You won. Congratulations. But some of us think it's a disaster for Labour. And we're going to say so. Sorry.0
