Utter muppet
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Utter muppet
Yup. Couple of loons in there but just living on a NZ beach forever sounds nice.
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...abour-needs-relatable-leader-like-tony-blair/
Tony fecking Blair labelled 'relatable' by this complete fecknugget.
Please let her run for the leadership. Pleeeeease!
Tony fecking Blair labelled 'relatable' by this complete fecknugget.
Please let her run for the leadership. Pleeeeease!
Last edited:
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...abour-needs-relatable-leader-like-tony-blair/
Tony fecking Blair labelled 'relatable' by this complete fecknugget.
Please let her run for the leadership. Pleeeeease!
You're suggesting Blair wasn't popular in the mid 90s?
She's previously claimed to have disassociated herself from the party because of him, which is a weird thing to do about someone you find relatable and charismatic. Almost as if a) those claims are bollocks at worst and meaningless at best, b) she herself saw through those things and realised what a lying bastard he was or c) she is the media obsessed self-promoter she constantly complains about being labelled as.
PS. Yet another 'we need a leader like' claim and not a single name offered. I'm sensing a pattern.
Last edited:
For some strange reason. Jeremy remind me of this quote
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...abour-needs-relatable-leader-like-tony-blair/
Tony fecking Blair labelled 'relatable' by this complete fecknugget.
Please let her run for the leadership. Pleeeeease!
I really can't stand her, she's a publicity politician of the worst kind.
I kind of agree with her though, at the start Blair was relatable thats what his team excelled at. They offered something to everyone whilst being a generic enough personality for it to work. Id even argue Cameron was deemed relatable at the start despite his background. People like to relate to someone just above them in the ladder i think.
The backbone of English Conservatism.
Rather than their ability to relate with the voter, i think it was Blair/Cameron's qualities as salesmen. Phillips is looking for electability derived from a positive message, whether it is later found to be lacking or not. Reading the article doesn't reflect particularly well on her desire for sincerity in politics IMO.
All too often, the outrageous or controversial seems to be her go-to approach.
All too often, the outrageous or controversial seems to be her go-to approach.
i don't think these certain MP's have learnt nothing.
Last edited:
Owen Smiths mocking of the march stands out as particularly loathsome. What a cretin
Alongside Trump it's pretty much a salesman's trick of 'you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time'.
Most people still don't really aknowledge how much of a dictator Blair was in the way he bullied the media and members of his party. He was as bad as Trump but much much better at it. Andrew Marr lost his job as Independent Editor of all newspapers on the back of Blair and cronies bullying. Trump could never pull off something like that against the liberal media as much as he'd love too. Blair only catches flack for Iraq and was seen as a socialist, while the rich got richer and the poor didn't under his watch.
Completely agree.
As shit as Corbyn is I still feel that not voting for Smith was the right decision
Criticising MP's for not mentioning the march on their Twitter feeds strikes me as a bit tenuous and clutching at straws.
Nevertheless, Smith's own tweet was fecking shocking and highlights how terrible he is and how crap that whole coup was last autumn.
Nevertheless, Smith's own tweet was fecking shocking and highlights how terrible he is and how crap that whole coup was last autumn.
This is almost too good to be true for his opponents. SURELY he has an explanation, but on the face of things it appears he has made a hugely embarrassing mistake.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...cing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
To summarise, Corbyn today published his 15/16 tax return as a response to the Chancellor's refusal to publish his. The trouble is, it appears that he has failed to declare about £40k of income that he would have been expected to receive as Labour leader in 15/16 in addition to his MP's salary. The only way he can get out of this is if it turns out he refused to take the additional salary for being Labour leader, but there is no indication that this was ever the case. I'd say the most likely explanation is he/his accountant was too lazy to pay attention to the figures they were using on the Self Assessment form and overlooked the additional income somehow...which is a criminal offence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...cing-questions-tax-return-amid-claims-failed/
To summarise, Corbyn today published his 15/16 tax return as a response to the Chancellor's refusal to publish his. The trouble is, it appears that he has failed to declare about £40k of income that he would have been expected to receive as Labour leader in 15/16 in addition to his MP's salary. The only way he can get out of this is if it turns out he refused to take the additional salary for being Labour leader, but there is no indication that this was ever the case. I'd say the most likely explanation is he/his accountant was too lazy to pay attention to the figures they were using on the Self Assessment form and overlooked the additional income somehow...which is a criminal offence.
It's made worse by the fact that he also fecked up last year by failing to properly declare his pension income and by being late with his submission. To feck up twice like this makes him look like a clown. The obvious response from his opponents will be 'if he can't manage his own basic financial affairs, how is he going to manage the country's?'. A fair point last year, and an even more convincing one this time around.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't been taking the Leader of the Opposition salary.
I'd be surprised if he / his corbynista cheerleaders hadn't made a big fuss about it though
For what it's worth
Agreed with both.
This is so Corbyn. Try to make a not unreasonable point, but end up scoring an own goal.
So his accountants put it under state benefit rather than salary potentially in the wrong column? Another desperate attempt to discredit the message quickly by attacking the man.
Anyone taking a cabinet position should release their tax returns. Lets see if the tories are pressed into doing so, Hammond say he won't because he's nothing to hide...
Anyone taking a cabinet position should release their tax returns. Lets see if the tories are pressed into doing so, Hammond say he won't because he's nothing to hide...
Did anyone read Chuka Umunna's article in the New Statesman?
Granted, i had my iPad read it to me, but the words came across as less sincere when compared to his TV appearances for example.
Toward the end of Corbyn's NHS speech, he said:
Whilst true, it also happens to be one of his particular failings. Anyone can criticise the Government, the leader of the opposition is expected to produce workable solutions. In this light i found his speech so...insipid. Certainly, parties need to pressure the government on social care and mental health (make them walk as well as talk), but i would have liked to see a greater emphasis given to preventive medicine. Moreover, i am surprised that he hasn't pushed the idea of a state-operated pharmaceutical arm; more-so considering his ideological roots.
Granted, i had my iPad read it to me, but the words came across as less sincere when compared to his TV appearances for example.
Toward the end of Corbyn's NHS speech, he said:
Whilst true, it also happens to be one of his particular failings. Anyone can criticise the Government, the leader of the opposition is expected to produce workable solutions. In this light i found his speech so...insipid. Certainly, parties need to pressure the government on social care and mental health (make them walk as well as talk), but i would have liked to see a greater emphasis given to preventive medicine. Moreover, i am surprised that he hasn't pushed the idea of a state-operated pharmaceutical arm; more-so considering his ideological roots.
Well it doesn't take Stephen Hawking to work out how this going..
But here he is anyway
Stephen Hawking: Jeremy Corbyn is a disaster for Labour
But here he is anyway
Stephen Hawking: Jeremy Corbyn is a disaster for Labour
Lots of hurt feelings on Twitter. The man is a disaster. No two ways about it.
I mostly posted the tweet to show the difference between him and the Labour MPs criticising him. If(God forbid)there's another leadership challenge than this sort stuff(The MP's not tweeting and Corbyn at the rally)will just be used(Rightly) against the person challenging and we will have another pointless race.
As for the content, I would agree with you. Hopefully it's because the general election is still a far bit away.
Last edited:
Anyone see the YouGov poll of Labour members yesterday? Fascinating if you're into that stuff. Some of the bits that stood out...
http://election-data.co.uk/labour-membership-poll-results-2017
- Sizeable drop in support for Corbyn, but he'd still win another leadership election easily
- Big split between older and newer members over Corbyn - among members who joined before Corbyn, he has approval ratings of -46%. Among members who joined after its +36%
- 68% of Labour members support a second referendum
- Only 92% of Labour members would vote Labour in a General Election (!)
http://election-data.co.uk/labour-membership-poll-results-2017
Looks similar to the situation after the referendum in most aspects.
Not at all... he is fantastic and on course for a huge majority in the next general election... if only the Blairites like me would give him time to establish himself. (Or that's what I've been told for the last 18 months or so)
It's a good job the libs are shambolic as well otherwise his figures would probably look even worse
Whilst I supported Corbyn at both elections the situation is incredibly worrying. He clearly isn't popular and although I'd argue that a lot of that isn't his fault (disproportionate and disingenuous media attacks on him and his positions put a lot of voters (as well as the non-voters who he was aiming to lure to Labour's side) off from the start and was hugely exacerbated by how inexperienced his team was), that doesn't change the fact that it's a problem.
But the more worrying thing for Labour in the long-term, and something that can't be fixed by simply getting rid of Corbyn, is that the electoral coalition that made up Labour's core support throughout their last period of success no longer exists. Floating voters were lost in the New Labour-era through scandals, wars and the financial crash and both 'traditional' working class and liberal metropolitan support which was decaying throughout the Blair/Brown years has been split down the middle by the EU issue. Corbyn gets a lot of stick for his input on Brexit but frankly I'm not sure if there was a way to play it that wouldn't alienate the working classes by being too pro-EU or the metropolitan/young crowd by being too-Brexit. In that respect as strange as it sounds the quicker we leave the EU (or do a complete u-turn and decide to stay) the better for Labour, only when it's resolved will it stop being such a divisive issue.
But the more worrying thing for Labour in the long-term, and something that can't be fixed by simply getting rid of Corbyn, is that the electoral coalition that made up Labour's core support throughout their last period of success no longer exists. Floating voters were lost in the New Labour-era through scandals, wars and the financial crash and both 'traditional' working class and liberal metropolitan support which was decaying throughout the Blair/Brown years has been split down the middle by the EU issue. Corbyn gets a lot of stick for his input on Brexit but frankly I'm not sure if there was a way to play it that wouldn't alienate the working classes by being too pro-EU or the metropolitan/young crowd by being too-Brexit. In that respect as strange as it sounds the quicker we leave the EU (or do a complete u-turn and decide to stay) the better for Labour, only when it's resolved will it stop being such a divisive issue.
For a guy this fecking terrible at a job, there sure seems to be a delay in people naming replacements, let alone them actually coming forward. Admittedly the whole process has been made much harder without Owen Smith and his 29 inch area of expertise, but come on.
Looks like Mandelson has the birds singing again.
Apparently Momentum want to secure the lefts voice in the party, the heresy. You'd never see the Blairites form groups and openly talk about influencing the party...oh wait
Apparently Momentum want to secure the lefts voice in the party, the heresy. You'd never see the Blairites form groups and openly talk about influencing the party...oh wait
And if Momentum were an internal grouping like Compass it wouldn't be a problem. The difference with Momentum is that it has people who are banned from Labour for being members of proscribed groups involved at both senior and grassroots level.
As far as i know you have to be a Labour member to join Momentum these days???
I'm not a Momentum member and don't plan on being, they're a bit of a shambles but i don't think they're attempting to takeover the party and i find such claims ridiculous. Its just a control battle, if the Blairites came up with their own methods of involving the left and members then it would diminish the need for such groups.
progress is funded by the man who financed the SDP breakup of the labour front bench. Sainsbury would also be banned from the party for that if he was anyone but a moneyman who has given £2 million to blairs disciples.
Mandelsson has explicitly stated he is trying to destroy the party, but no banning for him either.
I don't think much of momentum myself, but the idea they are the bad guys and watson (£500k this year from max mosely alone) is fighting the good fight for ordinary people is risible.
For the most part, momentum are pretty much what grass routes labour were before blairs reorganisation. Progress is pretty much what the one nation tories used to be.
Does that list of people also include people suspended for liking the Foo Fighters or thinking a Green Party policy isn't terrible?
I've already been beaten to the punch when it comes to commenting on Watson's utter hypocrisy on this issue.
Shawcroft has said that people like Wrack & Mountford won't be expelled even after the change and Lansman makes clear there won't be enforcement of the rule. Besides you dont have to be a Momentum member to organise local campaigns, that was always the point. The rule change was just so that Lansman had a mechanism to maintain control of Momentum, for which I can hardly blame him, but it does nothing to avoid the inherent problem.
What it creates is a mess of blurred lines. You have local Momentum groups being created where proscribed members can be leading influential figures, and then members from the group get to cast votes about who should be leader or sit on the NEC or whether to implement a policy or not. If you accept the basic principle that there are some on the left who should be kept out from Labour then you have to have some sort of impermeable barrier between those people and Labour. Momentum creates an enormous and obvious hole in that particular barrier.
If you don't think people on the left should be barred, because you think there are no enemies to our left or whatever, then that's different. However in that case it's Labour's various rules on proscription that should be up for debate. There's no point accepting a rule but then supporting a mechanism for getting around it, better to debate the rule itself.
A very fair point, it is a parallel organisation that Labour can't control. Watson purposefully skews that argument towards something else though.
If Labour wants to reconcile they have to recognise that the left and members need their voice heard. Labour has the power to make Momentum irrelevant but the way to do that isn't to fight over influence and paint the left as the enemy.
Won't happen though as progress has its own pay masters who don't want their influence diminished. Also lets face it im sure MPs hate any bottom up influence, they'll consider themselves more informed and having been elected they'll also wonder why they have listen to people who aren't.