Page 704 of 722

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:56 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Ha ha.

Excoriating thread here on Labour's published report on the election. I don't understand lots of it.


Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:12 pm
by crabcakes_windermere
Labour? No. Corbyn? Yes.

The buck either stops with him, or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, he still owes an apology for not vacating a role he knew he couldn’t do.


Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:32 pm
by Arrowhead
Fair enough questions I suppose, but sometimes when I read those sort of sentiments I do wonder if people are in danger of forgetting who the real villains of the piece are i.e. the seething mass of braying nationalist wankers sat in the seats directly opposite the Labour benches.

If I were Sir Keir, I'd be tempted to respond by pithily pointing out that if voters had backed Labour in 2015, MP's would probably be debating traffic cone sizes right now.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:43 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Jez fans do that thing too. "Jo Swinson" is the guilty woman, apparently.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:49 pm
by youngian
The man who thought it was a good idea to hold an EU ref with Corbyn as your main ally is wholly to blame for this disaster. Corbyn just performed to the best of his ability.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:10 pm
by crabcakes_windermere
I don't think there's any question the Tories are the villains. But when you have a group of people who could have done a number of things that could have mitigated if not outright stopped the villains, and who said repeatedly they wanted to stop the villains at any cost, but ultimately did nothing (or worse, the absolute wrong thing) because they wanted their own prize above working for the greater good of us all, then you have to ask yourself where the line between villain and the rest of us is.

Corbyn and his entourage couldn't tolerate the thought of him not being PM in an interim GONU. So even though there was no question of him stepping down as Labour leader it didn't happen. So the votes that were there in the last parliament for remain were wasted. Then he (and to be fair, Swinson) handed Johnson the election he wanted against all advice, because he now believed his own magic grandpa hype. Then not only could they not tolerate standing down candidates to give other parties a clear run at taking seats (and again, also true of Swinson), his team actively targeted lost causes for political point-scoring reasons and 'revenge' actions, and pissed precious resources up the wall while leaving other winnable seats in dire need of support - and as we know now, they didn't even get close to spending all they could have either.

And then he has the fucking nerve to turn round and say he won the argument, and further try and push an even worse clone of himself on us as a replacement. Swinson also fucked up, but was the far smaller influence and also was clearly remorseful when the extent of the damage was clear. Corbyn barely seems to have noticed anything has occurred, and when he is finally ejected he will go back to his safe seat and his comfortable city lifestyle, thoroughly isolated from the people he wasn't willing to listen to whose lives and businesses he has helped ruin.

Are people in danger of forgetting the real bad guys? I doubt it - over the next 5 years we'll get plenty of reminders of quite how nasty the nasty party can be when there are no checks on their behaviour. Right now though, I think it's VERY important that anyone who has a say in who the next labour leader is is painfully aware of how absolutely abandoned and let down people were. I am *furious* that so many opportunities were squandered, and that Corbyn's supporters are still trying to exonerate him when the evidence is overwhelming about where the fault lay. They should have the exact same contempt for the arrogant old fucker as they show for Nick Clegg entering coalition with Cameron - and he arguably prevented some of the worst Tory excesses, rather than enabling a moral vacuum and his deranged advisor free reign because it was *so* important the left not give a fraction of an inch in compromise.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:14 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Arrowhead wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:32 pm
Fair enough questions I suppose, but sometimes when I read those sort of sentiments I do wonder if people are in danger of forgetting who the real villains of the piece are i.e. the seething mass of braying nationalist wankers sat in the seats directly opposite the Labour benches.

If I were Sir Keir, I'd be tempted to respond by pithily pointing out that if voters had backed Labour in 2015, MP's would probably be debating traffic cone sizes right now.
Rule number one: Never blame the electorate.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:42 pm
by bluebellnutter
crabcakes_windermere wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:10 pm
Corbyn and his entourage couldn't tolerate the thought of him not being PM in an interim GONU. So even though there was no question of him stepping down as Labour leader it didn't happen. So the votes that were there in the last parliament for remain were wasted.
This. 100% this. Had someone with a bit more nous and a bit less dogma been in charge of Labour then it is likely we'd have at the very least seen a Customs Union attached to the Withdrawal Agreement (and nothing Johnson could do to stop it as he'd have had to keep asking for extensions to prevent No Deal). This in turn could very easily have led possibly to Single Market alignment and maybe even a 2nd referendum, especially if Johnson had been seen as dragging his feet long enough by failing to pass the Withdrawal Agreement.

It wouldn't have taken much, just someone with a steady hand who others could work with to keep a fairly shaky coalition (all of Lab bar the headbangers, LD, SNP, PC, Green, Remain Tories, Change UK, and post-WA publishing maybe even the DUP) together long enough to do it. It wouldn't have taken much, just not pig-headed stubbornness. Hell they might even have accepted making someone half decent leader of a GNU as well as being Labour leader in that scenario, or at least have backed a reasonable "unity" candidate like Margaret Beckett or Ken Clarke.

The votes were there to be won, as they proved by keeping winning them. Then they pissed it all away by overreaching and fucked us all.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:47 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Wrexham Labour currently attacking their new Tory MP for meeting constituents in a pub.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:26 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Oh man this is brutal.


Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:53 pm
by crabcakes_windermere
I mean, sure, it's clever. But I think you'd have to be a very particular political wonk to find it funny rather than boring and achingly smug.

Also: fuck me, goes on a bit doesn't it?

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:15 pm
by The Weeping Angel
crabcakes_windermere wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:53 pm
I mean, sure, it's clever. But I think you'd have to be a very particular political wonk to find it funny rather than boring and achingly smug.

Also: fuck me, goes on a bit doesn't it?
Yeah I admit it does go on a bit, but it speaks to me plus I know the guy who wrote it.

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:14 pm
by Safe_Timber_Man
I can't believe that with all that's going on they're desperately trying to make this a big headline story. But I guess all that's going on is the exact reason they are trying to make this a big headline story.





LB.JPG
LB.JPG (159.77 KiB) Viewed 1019 times
lb1.JPG
lb1.JPG (70.94 KiB) Viewed 1019 times

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:35 pm
by bluebellnutter
Do ASOS advertise in the Mail by any chance?

Re: Labour, Generally.

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:43 pm
by Safe_Timber_Man
If not the Mail are doing them a hell of a favour!

asos.JPG
asos.JPG (29.55 KiB) Viewed 958 times