Political round up.............

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 15 Jun 2015, 3:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

Turn up for the books.............The hard left guy gets on the ballot for the Labour leadership !!....Managed to bag 35 nominations although some were chucked at him by Burnham who will no doubt pick up many of his second preferences...........

Corbyn has no chance....

However it means one of the other three is likely to get hurt in the first round..........Corbyn no doubt will hoover up the extreme nutty left of which there are no doubt plenty in the Labour party and will probably get enough to take him through the first round !!...

(Cruddas finished top in the 2007 Deputy leader race after the first round (He was the "left" candidate)...Of course Harman and Johnson did better as the rounds progresses with second prefs...)

That means one of the three favorites is likely to be eliminated first..................

Latest odds............

Burnham 10/11
Kendall 5/2
Cooper 3/1
Corbyn 66/1 .................

by Duty281 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 1:41 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

So Yvette Cooper is sexist as well?

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 1:42 pm

Although to be fair, Truss, I wouldn't actually say I believe him to be sexist based on that comment, but it is the kind of answer people really should think about a lot more than just throw away remarks.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 1:43 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

So Yvette Cooper is sexist as well?

You'd have to enlighten me on why, Doots, as I pay very little attention to politics, and was mainly drawn by the sexism part of that post.

by Duty281 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 1:50 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

So Yvette Cooper is sexist as well?

You'd have to enlighten me on why, Doots, as I pay very little attention to politics, and was mainly drawn by the sexism part of that post.

Because she says that Labour should not be run by "two white men", that she's the real radical because she's a woman, and that Labour needs a "feminist approach".

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 1:51 pm

She plays the female card all the time like Harmon....

If Stella Creasy was going for the leadership..I probably would have paid 3 to vote...

No fan of all this PC crap..Perhaps Burnham could have picked better words but this is one of the reasons politicians get hammered for saying sod all...

One of the reasons non PC Corbyn is storming it.

by **seanmichaels** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 1:56 pm

I think Cooper is a front for getting Balls deep into power again.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 2:15 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

No more patronising and sexist than someone saying Labour 'deserves' a 'woman leader'. Gender should be irrelevant, whoever is speaking, it's not ok for a woman to say the next leader should be female any more than it's not ok for a man to say the next leader should be male.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 2:23 pm

The point with non-PC Corbyn (which sounds like the worst police drama ITV4 could muster up) is that he is less likely to say something disparaging towards women, and it is this rather non-conformist, non-traditionalist aura that has struck a chord with many.

I would say, Dootles, Cooper has gone a little too far, although I do sympathise with the underlying meaning of her point.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 2:26 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

No more patronising and sexist than someone saying Labour 'deserves' a 'woman leader'. Gender should be irrelevant, whoever is speaking, it's not ok for a woman to say the next leader should be female any more than it's not ok for a man to say the next leader should be male.

I think the difference there being that there is probably a hell of a lot more to the argument that their next leader being female would be an idea to run with than even saying it should be a man. This may be due to the years of institutionalised sexism that still has rivers that run throughout most communities, or just the mere fact that if you put two entirely equal candidates alongside each other and one was male, the other female, I think the benefit of choosing the female would be larger in the public eye than choosing a man. And popularity contests and politics do go rather hand in hand.

by Alistair Tue 25 Aug 2015, 2:52 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Alistair wrote:Don't really understand the fear of Corbyn. Bout time Labour was refreshed.

Fear? Of another decade or so out of power??

Refreshed? He's not refreshing anything. He's going back to the old Labour that spent decades in the wilderness, rather than the new Labour that had one of their longest ever stints in goverment. Even reinstating clause 4 FFS!! Such a lurch towards communism proves Labour haven't learned the lessons of GE15.

Being someone who doesn't vote Labour, seeing them suffer for 10 years wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 3:08 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

No more patronising and sexist than someone saying Labour 'deserves' a 'woman leader'. Gender should be irrelevant, whoever is speaking, it's not ok for a woman to say the next leader should be female any more than it's not ok for a man to say the next leader should be male.

I think the difference there being that there is probably a hell of a lot more to the argument that their next leader being female would be an idea to run with than even saying it should be a man. This may be due to the years of institutionalised sexism that still has rivers that run throughout most communities, or just the mere fact that if you put two entirely equal candidates alongside each other and one was male, the other female, I think the benefit of choosing the female would be larger in the public eye than choosing a man. And popularity contests and politics do go rather hand in hand.

So, unsurpsringly for a lefti, you sign up to the theory that sexism (a bit like racism) can only go one way..... Rolling Eyes

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 3:11 pm

He is refreshing because Labour haven't had his policies for 33 years....

Thing to remember is it's not the 80s anymore so we have no idea what didn't work then won't work now....

One thing for sure is he's a canny old sod who If the internet is anything to go by has a slick little machine going....

I can't see him winning but he was 100/1 to win this race...

Best not underestimate the guy too much..

I thought Cammy was a shoe in against Gordon.........

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 3:16 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

No more patronising and sexist than someone saying Labour 'deserves' a 'woman leader'. Gender should be irrelevant, whoever is speaking, it's not ok for a woman to say the next leader should be female any more than it's not ok for a man to say the next leader should be male.

I think the difference there being that there is probably a hell of a lot more to the argument that their next leader being female would be an idea to run with than even saying it should be a man. This may be due to the years of institutionalised sexism that still has rivers that run throughout most communities, or just the mere fact that if you put two entirely equal candidates alongside each other and one was male, the other female, I think the benefit of choosing the female would be larger in the public eye than choosing a man. And popularity contests and politics do go rather hand in hand.

So, unsurpsringly for a lefti, you sign up to the theory that sexism (a bit like racism) can only go one way.....

Oh, I'm a leftie now? Having not really stated such I do appreciate you labelling my views based on them not matching your own on this case.

I do not think racism and sexism can only go one way, but I think it is wrong to suggest the balance is nearly even equal at the moment, and it certainly hasn't been anything close to that in the past. I do think some of the fawning over issues currently gets a bit much, but politics is a world in which I sadly expect both to be more prevalent than it should be.

In many ways I see Corbyn as exactly the person politics as a whole needs right now. Someone who isn't just part of the boys club mentality and who actually feels like someone with his own opinions rather than those based on whatever machine is best to cuddle up to at the moment. As someone who finds most politicians to be distasteful individuals, I at least have some respect for Corbyn . Whether this is clever public image or not is certainly open to interpretation

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 3:22 pm

Anybody to the left of Attila the Hun is a communist according to Toppy..

by **seanmichaels** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 3:39 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

I do not think racism and sexism can only go one way, but I think it is wrong to suggest the balance is nearly even equal at the moment, and it certainly hasn't been anything close to that in the past.

I reckon average wage earning blokes like myself suffer from institutionalised sexism these days. It has gone the other way. Birds get all the mid management roles and not because they are smart, it is because it looks good on company figures (and they always write things down in pretty little notepads). I have seen it over 10-15 years in finance. There are quotas for ethnic minorities and women that companies have to fill. How is that fair to the majority single white male?

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:07 pm

I've always found women to be more professional, motivated and reliable If I'm honest.....

Better in bed too..... devil

by Duty281 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:58 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've always found women to be more professional, motivated and reliable If I'm honest.....

Better in bed too.....

I've never found that to be the case... Whistle

by wheelchair1991 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:22 pm

The reason i am staying in the Labour Party to answer an earlier post is because i believe you have to stay and argue your views instead of going off in a huff just because your guy didnt win. Political parties on all sides have lots of different views within them.

The Burnham sexism stuff is not worth my time it is so ridiculous

by wheelchair1991 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:53 pm

Quick update:
600,000 people signed up to vote however as it stands 3,300 have been stopped from voting because they belong to other parties. 45,000 have been stopped from voting as they are not on the electoral register. Others have been stopped from voting because they have signed up more then once in the hope of getting more then one vote.

In total of the 600,000 originally registered to vote the actual number who can actually vote as it stands is 553,000. However the Labour Party have a group working to vet voters still. So the number of 553,000 is likely to go down.

It is estimated the number could eventually go down to 500,000

by Rowley Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:56 pm

As a Labour supporter has to be said this hardly paints the party in its most favourable light. Tough sell to persuade the population to let you run the country when you can't even run a leadership election.

by wheelchair1991 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:06 pm

Rowley wrote:As a Labour supporter has to be said this hardly paints the party in its most favourable light. Tough sell to persuade the population to let you run the country when you can't even run a leadership election.

I hope Rowley this is the last time the Labour Party fights a leadership under these rules

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 9:59 pm

wheelchair1991 wrote:Quick update:
600,000 people signed up to vote however as it stands 3,300 have been stopped from voting because they belong to other parties. 45,000 have been stopped from voting as they are not on the electoral register. Others have been stopped from voting because they have signed up more then once in the hope of getting more then one vote.

In total of the 600,000 originally registered to vote the actual number who can actually vote as it stands is 553,000. However the Labour Party have a group working to vet voters still. So the number of 553,000 is likely to go down.

It is estimated the number could eventually go down to 500,000

You have to wonder who's doing the sifting....Internet is full of stories about genuine members being told they can't vote..

I'm with Rowley I can't take this shower seriously..

But Fairplay wheelie have to admire hardy souls that are willing to go down with the ship..

by wheelchair1991 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 11:53 pm

Trust me Truss ive had much worse things happen in my life then my political party having struggles, ive seen it before and it will happen again.

Thats why i take it in my stride and continue to argue my points in hopefully a constructive way

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 12:45 am

That's the spirit..

by wheelchair1991 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 1:13 am

Apparently breaking news the head of one of the trade unions has been denied a vote, and they say labour is in the pocket of the unions....

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 9:20 am

wheelchair1991 wrote:Apparently breaking news the head of one of the trade unions has been denied a vote, and they say labour is in the pocket of the unions....

If Corbyn finishes on 49% and Cooper or Burnham win on 51% ...............

There is going to be trouble................

Trouble If Corbyn wins because they'll blame the Tories for winning it for him....

Trouble If Corbyn misses out by a whisker because of the members denied a vote.........

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 26 Aug 2015, 10:20 am

Caroline Lucas's open letter to Jeremy Corbyn:

by Alistair Wed 26 Aug 2015, 10:22 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
wheelchair1991 wrote:Apparently breaking news the head of one of the trade unions has been denied a vote, and they say labour is in the pocket of the unions....

If Corbyn finishes on 49% and Cooper or Burnham win on 51% ...............

There is going to be trouble................

Trouble If Corbyn wins because they'll blame the Tories for winning it for him....

Trouble If Corbyn misses out by a whisker because of the members denied a vote.........

You're assuming it's going to be that close. I'll be shocked if it goes to the first set of alternative votes.

by Duty281 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 10:22 am

All a farce. It seems that some people who recently turned their backs on Labour, under Blair or Miliband, have been tempted back by Corbyn and voted accordingly.

But their votes get rejected because they "don't support the values of Labour" or some such waffle that is open to interpretation. I'm pleased I voted for Corbyn - some poor bas*ard who voted and didn't have it counted...I've got you covered!

I think Corbyn will lose, and probably lose in a way reminiscent of Farage - ballot papers missing, vote declared six hours late, suspiciously low turnout etc.

Labour are scum, and will do the utmost to deny Corbyn.

It's just not cricket.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 10:42 am

Alistair wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
wheelchair1991 wrote:Apparently breaking news the head of one of the trade unions has been denied a vote, and they say labour is in the pocket of the unions....

If Corbyn finishes on 49% and Cooper or Burnham win on 51% ...............

There is going to be trouble................

Trouble If Corbyn wins because they'll blame the Tories for winning it for him....

Trouble If Corbyn misses out by a whisker because of the members denied a vote.........

You're assuming it's going to be that close. I'll be shocked if it goes to the first set of alternative votes.

I wouldn't...........When canvassers poll you .......You tend to go with your heart............When it comes to the cold realisation that the Tories may get a free ride...

Some will vote with their heads..

by Alistair Wed 26 Aug 2015, 11:07 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Alistair wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
wheelchair1991 wrote:Apparently breaking news the head of one of the trade unions has been denied a vote, and they say labour is in the pocket of the unions....

If Corbyn finishes on 49% and Cooper or Burnham win on 51% ...............

There is going to be trouble................

Trouble If Corbyn wins because they'll blame the Tories for winning it for him....

Trouble If Corbyn misses out by a whisker because of the members denied a vote.........

You're assuming it's going to be that close. I'll be shocked if it goes to the first set of alternative votes.

I wouldn't...........When canvassers poll you .......You tend to go with your heart............When it comes to the cold realisation that the Tories may get a free ride...

Some will vote with their heads..

In a way i agree, GE15 being a recent example of this. However, i think Corbyn will win it in the first round.

by wheelchair1991 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 11:12 am

Its perfectly possible Corbyn will win in the first round with the numbers ive seen, he needs to be about 43% on the first round of voting, if Corbyn is below that he will lose on 2nd/3rd preferance

by TopHat24/7 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 2:17 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He is refreshing because Labour haven't had his policies for 33 years....

Thing to remember is it's not the 80s anymore so we have no idea what didn't work then won't work now....

One thing for sure is he's a canny old sod who If the internet is anything to go by has a slick little machine going....

I can't see him winning but he was 100/1 to win this race...

Best not underestimate the guy too much..

I thought Cammy was a shoe in against Gordon.........

And I haven't peed the bed in 30.5 years but it doesn't mean regressing to an infant like state should be considered 'refreshing' or 'progress'.

by TopHat24/7 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 2:29 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

No more patronising and sexist than someone saying Labour 'deserves' a 'woman leader'. Gender should be irrelevant, whoever is speaking, it's not ok for a woman to say the next leader should be female any more than it's not ok for a man to say the next leader should be male.

I think the difference there being that there is probably a hell of a lot more to the argument that their next leader being female would be an idea to run with than even saying it should be a man. This may be due to the years of institutionalised sexism that still has rivers that run throughout most communities, or just the mere fact that if you put two entirely equal candidates alongside each other and one was male, the other female, I think the benefit of choosing the female would be larger in the public eye than choosing a man. And popularity contests and politics do go rather hand in hand.

So, unsurpsringly for a lefti, you sign up to the theory that sexism (a bit like racism) can only go one way.....

Oh, I'm a leftie now? Having not really stated such I do appreciate you labelling my views based on them not matching your own on this case.

I do not think racism and sexism can only go one way, but I think it is wrong to suggest the balance is nearly even equal at the moment, and it certainly hasn't been anything close to that in the past. I do think some of the fawning over issues currently gets a bit much, but politics is a world in which I sadly expect both to be more prevalent than it should be.

In many ways I see Corbyn as exactly the person politics as a whole needs right now. Someone who isn't just part of the boys club mentality and who actually feels like someone with his own opinions rather than those based on whatever machine is best to cuddle up to at the moment. As someone who finds most politicians to be distasteful individuals, I at least have some respect for Corbyn . Whether this is clever public image or not is certainly open to interpretation

I'd say it's pretty clear from the tenor of your posting history as it happens, same as mine is. Your stance is generally a 'left/liberal' one on most issues I've scene.

Equality isn't about 'balance'. It's about 'equality'. That's where those repulsive feminists go wrong, they don't want equality they want as much as possible in women's favour.

There is a disputable wage gap between the sexes, but there is an even greater and more discernible gap when it comes to child custody, domestic abuse conviction rates, violent crime victim rates, incarceration rates, treatment of r*** suspects etc. Don't see anyone making much effort to close those gaps......

As much as possible things in the modern world should be dealt with on a gender neutral basis. They're not and efforts to 'even up' simply pervert results. Best person for the job, not best man, not best woman. Criticising a guy for suggesting one of his opponents wasn't a better person for the same job he was going for is utterly ridiculous and the height of hypocrisy given the blind eye turned to female canditates campaigning based on their gender ahead of policies and qualifications/suitability.

by Duty281 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 2:43 pm

With a common-sense attitude like that, TopHat, you'll be voting UKIP soon! thumbsup

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:10 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He is refreshing because Labour haven't had his policies for 33 years....

Thing to remember is it's not the 80s anymore so we have no idea what didn't work then won't work now....

One thing for sure is he's a canny old sod who If the internet is anything to go by has a slick little machine going....

I can't see him winning but he was 100/1 to win this race...

Best not underestimate the guy too much..

I thought Cammy was a shoe in against Gordon.........

And I haven't peed the bed in 30.5 years but it doesn't mean regressing to an infant like state should be considered 'refreshing' or 'progress'.

i'm not interested in your one eyed approach.............

3 million unemployed........Whole mining villages ruined...Lot's of people living on the streets.........Selling off land cheap to mates......Getting rid of playing fields ...Right to buy......Taking free milk for kids out of schools.....

I've read plenty about Britain in the 80s and Foot wasn't in power......Maybe you should read up on it too....

Or maybe stay ignorant.........Not bothered either way..

by Duty281 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:29 pm

Ah Mrs. Thatcher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Vp1moqTKs

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:31 pm

Pointless debating this subject with you Duty ...I think I'll pass....

by TopHat24/7 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He is refreshing because Labour haven't had his policies for 33 years....

Thing to remember is it's not the 80s anymore so we have no idea what didn't work then won't work now....

One thing for sure is he's a canny old sod who If the internet is anything to go by has a slick little machine going....

I can't see him winning but he was 100/1 to win this race...

Best not underestimate the guy too much..

I thought Cammy was a shoe in against Gordon.........

And I haven't peed the bed in 30.5 years but it doesn't mean regressing to an infant like state should be considered 'refreshing' or 'progress'.

i'm not interested in your one eyed approach.............

3 million unemployed........Whole mining villages ruined...Lot's of people living on the streets.........Selling off land cheap to mates......Getting rid of playing fields ...Right to buy......Taking free milk for kids out of schools.....

I've read plenty about Britain in the 80s and Foot wasn't in power......Maybe you should read up on it too....

Or maybe stay ignorant.........Not bothered either way..

And the relevance to any of that now.....??

The only thing more laughable than your ignorance, is your hypocrisy.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:35 pm

Very relevant because you keep referring back to the 80s in a derogatory way as regards Labour....

I forgot the POLL TAX... thumbsup

by Duty281 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:39 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pointless debating this subject with you Duty ...I think I'll pass....

Free milk was removed in the 70s, Truss, and Thatcher wasn't responsible. Mines were shut down because they were losing money hand over fist; a similar situation occurred a while back in Cornwall. Britain was the sick man of Europe in the 70s, three day working weeks, frequent power cuts, frequent strikes etc.

In a decade, Thatcher turned Britain into a global economic powerhouse, again. Because she had the balls to make tough decisions. She didn't get everything right, of course not, but she was good for Britain. thumbsup

And feminists hate her, because she had the audacity to accept the cards she had been dealt, worked hard, and achieved. No victim mentality prevailed with Thatcher.

You're welcome.

by TopHat24/7 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:41 pm

Anything more ironic than criticising someone ELSE referring back to the 1980s?? laughing

Point is (which I'll spell out at a grade school level for you given you're not the brightest [don't worry, we know it's not your fault the Yank education system is so poor]) when Tories were doing all that cr@p you bleat on about, Labour couldn't get into power with the kind of policy rhetoric Corbyn is spouting now.

So how, in a totally different socio-economic environment when none of that negativity abounds, are Corbyn's policies suddenly going to gain traction with voters (proper voters, not just wistful twits in a leadership election) and propel him to power?

They aren't. Simple as that.

After GE15 Labour immediately admitted its mistakes - neglecting UK's massive middle section. The not poors and not riches who supply the greatest number of actual voters and who the Tories successfully appealed to.

And now they're just making the same mistake all over again by installing a guy that wants to actively persecute success and creativity. Drag the whole country down to the level of the bottom few rather than elevate them up.

That's why he'll never win a GE.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:42 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Anything more ironic than criticising someone ELSE referring back to the 1980s??

Point is (which I'll spell out at a grade school level for you given you're not the brightest [don't worry, we know it's not your fault the Yank education system is so poor]) .

Stopped reading there...Can't be bothered !! thumbsup

by Duty281 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 3:48 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Caroline Lucas's open letter to Jeremy Corbyn:

Not sure why she's so chipper - Corbyn might hoover up a large % of the student vote if he gets in, and that would be bye-bye Greens.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 4:12 pm

Maybe she is of the left and sees hope in a guy that believes in the same things as her...

Or do you think everybody is as mercenary as you ??

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 26 Aug 2015, 4:18 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:To be fair, Labour has no right to define "when the time is right" for a female leader. What is wrong with now? If they are to open up voting to their members, does "when the time is right" not suggest he thinks those members should not vote for a woman because, basically, "when" definitely means it isn't now.

If he thinks he's the best candidate then obviously he doesn't think the time is right ..

All this PC crap.

Thats not true. He should not be defining himself as the better candidate on being a man. If he had answered "Of course Labour is ready for a female leader, but this is not an issue of gender, this is about who is the best candidate."

The patronising tone is symbolic of ingrained sexism.

No more patronising and sexist than someone saying Labour 'deserves' a 'woman leader'. Gender should be irrelevant, whoever is speaking, it's not ok for a woman to say the next leader should be female any more than it's not ok for a man to say the next leader should be male.

I think the difference there being that there is probably a hell of a lot more to the argument that their next leader being female would be an idea to run with than even saying it should be a man. This may be due to the years of institutionalised sexism that still has rivers that run throughout most communities, or just the mere fact that if you put two entirely equal candidates alongside each other and one was male, the other female, I think the benefit of choosing the female would be larger in the public eye than choosing a man. And popularity contests and politics do go rather hand in hand.

So, unsurpsringly for a lefti, you sign up to the theory that sexism (a bit like racism) can only go one way.....

Oh, I'm a leftie now? Having not really stated such I do appreciate you labelling my views based on them not matching your own on this case.

I do not think racism and sexism can only go one way, but I think it is wrong to suggest the balance is nearly even equal at the moment, and it certainly hasn't been anything close to that in the past. I do think some of the fawning over issues currently gets a bit much, but politics is a world in which I sadly expect both to be more prevalent than it should be.

In many ways I see Corbyn as exactly the person politics as a whole needs right now. Someone who isn't just part of the boys club mentality and who actually feels like someone with his own opinions rather than those based on whatever machine is best to cuddle up to at the moment. As someone who finds most politicians to be distasteful individuals, I at least have some respect for Corbyn . Whether this is clever public image or not is certainly open to interpretation

I'd say it's pretty clear from the tenor of your posting history as it happens, same as mine is. Your stance is generally a 'left/liberal' one on most issues I've scene.

Equality isn't about 'balance'. It's about 'equality'. That's where those repulsive feminists go wrong, they don't want equality they want as much as possible in women's favour.

There is a disputable wage gap between the sexes, but there is an even greater and more discernible gap when it comes to child custody, domestic abuse conviction rates, violent crime victim rates, incarceration rates, treatment of r*** suspects etc. Don't see anyone making much effort to close those gaps......

As much as possible things in the modern world should be dealt with on a gender neutral basis. They're not and efforts to 'even up' simply pervert results. Best person for the job, not best man, not best woman. Criticising a guy for suggesting one of his opponents wasn't a better person for the same job he was going for is utterly ridiculous and the height of hypocrisy given the blind eye turned to female canditates campaigning based on their gender ahead of policies and qualifications/suitability.

Doody is right, because like a UKIP supporter what you've done there is blown everything out of context and thrown in hyperbole Wink

. I should tell you that my voting history is Green's this time and Conservative the time before. And the local elections I voted Green and Cons.

Well, equality is kind of about balance. True balance would be equality. Definable things are probably not particularly good reading, but it is the undefined, things like attitude, that weight awfully well in male favour. The thing with your list there is not only is it a list of shocking words rather than any detail, but it also has an air of only understanding male "concerns."

But to move from that, the problem you're dealing with in politics is that image is hugely important. Do I think any of the people concerned are the best for the job? Unlikely. Very rarely do you see someone in politics in a position of power who is the best for the job. Barely do people in positions of power in health and education really have a wealth of knowledge on something they ham-handedly control. But, thats slightly irrelevant in this point. What I mean is that in a quest for voters I think placing in a female lead would be a rather huge move. So females kind of can campaign to some extent, especially in terms of Labour leadership rather than leadership of the country, because they can not only suggest they will give a female voice in politics (which I would suggest politics still hasn't "balanced") but they will probably win over a lot of voters for Labour on superficial terms, and the leader of the Labour party obviously needs to be winning over supporters to Labour.

I actually don't think the guy was particularly sexist, but there were hints in his answer of laced sexuality, or at least there was enough for it to be something people could pick up on. He wasn't smart enough to answer the question very well. He needn't have given it any thought. Is the Labour party ready for a female leader? Gender in our leadership is not important as long as the best candidate takes the position. I believe myself the best candidate, regardless of gender. Or something like that. What he did was consider whether a female leader was a good idea, which is silly. He wasnt asked if specific female is a good labour leader, he was asked if any female could be. He suitably tried to kick himself in the teeth softly with a rather naive answer.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 26 Aug 2015, 4:19 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Caroline Lucas's open letter to Jeremy Corbyn:

Not sure why she's so chipper - Corbyn might hoover up a large % of the student vote if he gets in, and that would be bye-bye Greens.

Because, thankfully, she would be far happier to have the issues she cares about catered for than just to run politics as a game of "who wins." Which is often why I detest politics. Why should anyone be a lifelong supporter of any party? Surely you should be considering the issues each time. Why would anyone want the labour party to go into some wilderness? Democracy isn't benefited by one strong party running the show.

by Duty281 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 4:33 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Caroline Lucas's open letter to Jeremy Corbyn:

Not sure why she's so chipper - Corbyn might hoover up a large % of the student vote if he gets in, and that would be bye-bye Greens.

Because, thankfully, she would be far happier to have the issues she cares about catered for than just to run politics as a game of "who wins." Which is often why I detest politics. Why should anyone be a lifelong supporter of any party? Surely you should be considering the issues each time. Why would anyone want the labour party to go into some wilderness? Democracy isn't benefited by one strong party running the show.

Exactly what I was saying earlier.

I'm confused about various comments about the Labour party. If they do go to the wilderness, there won't only be one strong party, as numerous people on this thread have said - the other parties will surely step up.

On a side note, I'm surprised you voting Green, Dolph - they want to ban horse racing (no more Cheltenham!) and their party is less ethnically diverse than UKIP!

PS: Judging by this - "my personal view is that there is potential in considering local grassroots electoral pacts where progressive candidates are standing, so as to give us the best chance of beating the Tories in 2020. It’s only by winning that we have the chance to implement positive change" - she does want to make politics a game of 'who wins'. Her party and Corbyn's (if he wins) will both be competing, largely, for the same demographic of voters.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Wed 26 Aug 2015, 4:36 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Caroline Lucas's open letter to Jeremy Corbyn:

Not sure why she's so chipper - Corbyn might hoover up a large % of the student vote if he gets in, and that would be bye-bye Greens.

Because, thankfully, she would be far happier to have the issues she cares about catered for than just to run politics as a game of "who wins." Which is often why I detest politics. Why should anyone be a lifelong supporter of any party? Surely you should be considering the issues each time. Why would anyone want the labour party to go into some wilderness? Democracy isn't benefited by one strong party running the show.

Exactly what I was saying earlier.

I'm confused about various comments about the Labour party. If they do go to the wilderness, there won't only be one strong party, as numerous people on this thread have said - the other parties will surely step up.

On a side note, I'm surprised you voting Green, Dolph - they want to ban horse racing (no more Cheltenham!) and their party is less ethnically diverse than UKIP!

Less ethnically diverse doesn't worry me too much, I trust their intentions and they would be one party I suggest don't bring in ethnic minority candidates just to parade them as ethnic minority candidates. If I'm honest, I don't see them ever getting their way on things like horseracing, but I do like to encourage their influence on politics and the other parties.

They surely will, but you can never be quite 100%. We could find other parties picking up varied factions of voters within labour, including the conservatives. It is very hard to imagine as I cannot see them fading in such a way anyway.

by Duty281 Wed 26 Aug 2015, 4:45 pm

The main problem with the Green party and their intentions is that it is built on the foundations of economic incompetence and attacking the rich; the latter of which is wearisome.

They need a good leader, the Australian lady was disastrous in the build-up to 2015, and they need to conjure up some decent economic plans - their main vote demographic may extend beyond the students if that happens.

by Sponsored content