2019 General Election

by Duty281 Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:40 am

First topic message reminder :

Now it's confirmed for December 12th (pretty much), I thought we should have a shiny new thread for the fourth and final UK GE of this tumultuous decade; a decade which has also included three referendums and four (maybe five) different Prime Ministers.

News this morning that Amber Rudd won't be defending her seat. Oh well.

Opinion polls currently have the Tories in a double digit lead, but it's anticipated to be a lot tighter than that by the time we reach the actual polling day.

by Duty281 Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:23 pm

super_realist wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's not a headline, it's a quote.

I can make a quote and attribute it to anyone in history, doesn't make it true. That's the point.

Very true. It’s why Johnson got the heave-ho from some newspaper.

by super_realist Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:38 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
super_realist wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's not a headline, it's a quote.

I can make a quote and attribute it to anyone in history, doesn't make it true. That's the point.

Lol, give over.

Not my fault that you don't know how bad The National is. It's not a trustworthy source. It would be like trusting The Socialist Worker.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:39 pm

super_realist wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
super_realist wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's not a headline, it's a quote.

I can make a quote and attribute it to anyone in history, doesn't make it true. That's the point.

Lol, give over.

Not my fault that you don't know how bad The National is. It's not a trustworthy source

ITV's fine though, can we agree on that?

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:44 pm

LondonTiger wrote:London has a devolved assembly and a lot of devolved powers. Perhaps everything inside the M25 should be spun off to a new country.

Heck we could go the whole hog and restore the Saxon kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex while we are at it.

Quite, which demonstrates the absurdity of many Nationalist claims don't you think?

by super_realist Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:46 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
super_realist wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
super_realist wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's not a headline, it's a quote.

I can make a quote and attribute it to anyone in history, doesn't make it true. That's the point.

Lol, give over.

Not my fault that you don't know how bad The National is. It's not a trustworthy source

ITV's fine though, can we agree on that?

It was more your haste to believe everything you read. You'd clearly just googled for it without considering the source. I prefer to be a bit more sceptical about things.

If he said it and you can provide a trust worthy source then fine. I wasn't really disputing what he said, more your jumping to something using a laughable source.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:57 pm

super_realist wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
super_realist wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
super_realist wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's not a headline, it's a quote.

I can make a quote and attribute it to anyone in history, doesn't make it true. That's the point.

Lol, give over.

Not my fault that you don't know how bad The National is. It's not a trustworthy source

ITV's fine though, can we agree on that?

It was more your haste to believe everything you read. You'd clearly just googled for it without considering the source. I prefer to be a bit more sceptical about things.

If he said it and you can provide a trust worthy source then fine. I wasn't really disputing what he said, more your jumping to something using a laughable source.

Can you please stop making assumptions about me? I already knew he'd said something along those lines, I Googled it the get the exact quote, and being quite busy at work I chose a link to it. I didn't scour the archives of the National for a compatible quote.

by super_realist Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:22 pm

I'm not assuming anything. You quoted The National a publication with zero credibility whatsoever.

Quoting a disreputable rag is bound to raise an eyebrow.

Consider it a lesson if you will, but people who bring up terrible sources get laughed at. If you quote terrible sources in any aspect of your life you get called on it, why not here?

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:06 pm

I think people will conclude for themselves whether you assumed or not.

by super_realist Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:14 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I think people will conclude for themselves whether you assumed or not.

Well you admitted you hastily googled for the quote, and if you had any sense you wouldn't cite such a ridiculous source, so yes people will make their mind up.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:16 pm

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:19 pm

I rushed to to get a source for a quote I knew existed - I can live with that. You assumed from the source that the quote was made up, and it's since been made clear that it wasn't. That's all yours.

by super_realist Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:40 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I rushed to to get a source for a quote I knew existed - I can live with that. You assumed from the source that the quote was made up, and it's since been made clear that it wasn't. That's all yours.

Now who is making assumptions?
I stated that when making citations to a particular source in defence of your claim that you use credible sources. I didn't infer it was made up at all. I was saying that if that is your source, you ought to be more sceptical.

I don't care whether you rushed or not. You should still use better and more trustworthy sources before trying to prove a point.
After all, if you want to prove something, why would you use the least credible source? Why wouldn't you get a quote from a more respectable outlet?

I don't care if you knew the quote it existed, using The National doesn't usually convince anyone else because those who know the paper know how crap it is. People want quality sources, not a emotionally invested, crackpot conspiracy theory rag of a paper.

I'm willing to accept you didn't know how rubbish a publication it is, but now you should at least concede its a terrible source and provide a better one.
I think that's fair enough.

by TightHEAD Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:42 pm

Can't help but think many of the worlds leaders are like big kids in the playground.

Where have the Statesmen gone?

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:44 pm

super_realist wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I rushed to to get a source for a quote I knew existed - I can live with that. You assumed from the source that the quote was made up, and it's since been made clear that it wasn't. That's all yours.

Now who is making assumptions?
I stated that when making citations to a particular source in defence of your claim that you use credible sources. I didn't infer it was made up at all. I was saying that if that is your source, you ought to be more sceptical.

I don't care whether you rushed or not. You should still use better and more trustworthy sources before trying to prove a point.
After all, if you want to prove something, why would you use the least credible source? Why wouldn't you get a quote from a more respectable outlet?

Because I was busy at work! I don't know how many more times I have to say it! Rolling Eyes

In any case, the quote was the point. I'm not terribly bothered if you're hung up on the source I used. Write a letter to the National if it makes you feel better.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:54 pm

[quote="super_realist"]

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm willing to accept you didn't know how rubbish a publication it is, but now you should at least concede its a terrible source and provide a better one.
I think that's fair enough.

I already have. scroll back.

To repeat myself, I didn't find the quote in the National, I was just trying to find a link to it.

If I could have my time over again - I'd do exactly the same thing, seeing as it annoys you so much kiss

by super_realist Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:56 pm

You don't seem to understand that although you claimed to have known that the quote existed, no one else was aware that you did. Therefore if you use a laughable source to attempt to prove it, then it appears your post has no credibility.

Now, given how busy you really appear to be at work, why don't you find a quote in a proper publication so that everyone doesn't think that you are trying to use a conspiracy theory newspaper to prove your point?

No one, busy at work or not would attempt to use The National as a source unless they weren't aware how terrible it is.

You keep going on about the quote being the most important thing, but if all you have is The National to back that up, then why would anyone else take it seriously? It means nothing because its a paper which cannot be trusted.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:58 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's not a headline, it's a quote.

Not that I have any duty to provide anything for someone I've never met before, here's a few more links to the quote:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=I%E2%80%99m+not+convinced+there+is+a+case+for+an+England-only+parliament.+We+have+an+England-only+parliament.+It%E2%80%99s+in+Westminster.+It%E2%80%99s+been+there+for+a+long+time.+I%E2%80%99m+not+disposed+to+create+another+parliament.

Is ITV acceptable?

I'm at work, for f*ck's sake.

by **Afro** Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:00 pm

super_realist wrote:

Now, given how busy you really appear to be at work, why don't you find a quote in a proper publication so that everyone doesn't think that you are trying to use a conspiracy theory newspaper to prove your point?

Right now I don't think that because I have forgotten what the point was and wish you'd stop going on about it

by McLaren Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:38 pm

Super

Can you please provide the evidence that has convinced you that the National has zero credibility?

by **Pr4wn** Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:50 am

super_realist wrote:You don't seem to understand that although you claimed to have known that the quote existed, no one else was aware that you did. Therefore if you use a laughable source to attempt to prove it, then it appears your post has no credibility.

Now, given how busy you really appear to be at work, why don't you find a quote in a proper publication so that everyone doesn't think that you are trying to use a conspiracy theory newspaper to prove your point?

No one, busy at work or not would attempt to use The National as a source unless they weren't aware how terrible it is.

You keep going on about the quote being the most important thing, but if all you have is The National to back that up, then why would anyone else take it seriously? It means nothing because its a paper which cannot be trusted.

You're obfuscating in an attempt to not have to deal with the quote itself, which you rather conveniently haven't done. You've made your point about the source, you seem to be the only one that cares any more.

Now let's address the actual quote, shall we? Let's just use the ITV source, if that's up to your standards. What do you think of it?

by super_realist Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:55 am

McLaren wrote:Super

Can you please provide the evidence that has convinced you that the National has zero credibility?

If you had ever read it Mac, you wouldn't need to ask.
Every story in it is picked on the basis of a small part of what someone says, often from years ago and out of context. It concentrates on the opposition to Independence, rather than concentrate on what might be good about Independence (not that there is anything). It is a blatantly biased paper and if you'd ever read it you'd know how full of nonsense it is. Do yourself a favour and "know your enemy".

It's the Independence equivalent of The Socialist Worker, a mad publication.

by super_realist Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:59 am

Pr4wn wrote:
super_realist wrote:You don't seem to understand that although you claimed to have known that the quote existed, no one else was aware that you did. Therefore if you use a laughable source to attempt to prove it, then it appears your post has no credibility.

Now, given how busy you really appear to be at work, why don't you find a quote in a proper publication so that everyone doesn't think that you are trying to use a conspiracy theory newspaper to prove your point?

No one, busy at work or not would attempt to use The National as a source unless they weren't aware how terrible it is.

You keep going on about the quote being the most important thing, but if all you have is The National to back that up, then why would anyone else take it seriously? It means nothing because its a paper which cannot be trusted.

You're obfuscating in an attempt to not have to deal with the quote itself, which you rather conveniently haven't done. You've made your point about the source, you seem to be the only one that cares any more.

Now let's address the actual quote, shall we? Let's just use the ITV source, if that's up to your standards. What do you think of it?

I don't really care about the quote. I'm not trying to defend it at all. Politicians make quotes all the time which we can scrutinise all day long. I was never asked to deal with the quote.
If I say that someone has made a quote such as "Wales couldn't be Independent" and then I cited The I Hate Wales Post as my source then who's going to take it seriously?
Everyone knows Johnson talks a load of rubbish, why is anyone taking it seriously?

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:17 am

All this

for that

by bsando Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:01 am

Corbyn's biggest challenge? Getting the Babyboomer, middle to upper income, sitting on a comfortable pension, smooth sailing career and housing market generation to back him. I can't see it happening. There's a huge chunk of 50-70 year olds who will be unable to relate to his position and policies. Counting on younger voters, those from ethnic minorities, cities and Scotland will be only way Corbyn can swing a small majority.

I will vote Labour (I'm a member actually) and will be better off for it but there are many who will probably lose some income due to the higher tax and regulations that will ensue from their policies.

by Samo Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:37 am

Corbyn showing impeccable leadership skills once again, this time making a tit of himself trying to reinvent his past watching the Queens speech.

How hard is it to say “I didnt watch the Queens speech”? The vast majority of the country didnt so its not a big deal.

by lostinwales Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:59 am

bsando wrote:Corbyn's biggest challenge? Getting the Babyboomer, middle to upper income, sitting on a comfortable pension, smooth sailing career and housing market generation to back him. I can't see it happening. There's a huge chunk of 50-70 year olds who will be unable to relate to his position and policies. Counting on younger voters, those from ethnic minorities, cities and Scotland will be only way Corbyn can swing a small majority.

I will vote Labour (I'm a member actually) and will be better off for it but there are many who will probably lose some income due to the higher tax and regulations that will ensue from their policies.

I really want (and the country needs) Labour to do well, but do feel concerned that if Labour does get in we'll just swap one set of blinkered idealists with crazy ideas for another. Not saying that all of Labour's ideas are crazy - anything but- but so much of the leadership seem to be wedded to a different version of reality from that which the rest of us occupy, and more importantly lack the flexibility to change their view. It sometimes feels that the message is 'all business is bad' and 'up the workers' without twigging that both sides need to be looked after for us all to prosper.

The AS thing is a huge distraction, but it does sum up a lot of the issues. It has come about not because JC is AS, but at least partially because he did not realise it to be a problem in the first place.

Anyway I have an easy voting decision. My constituency is a marginal Lib Dem/Conservative seat (currently held by an ERG minion) and the Lib Dems are closest to my personal views anyway.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:07 pm

https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1202521499581575172

That thread is fascinating

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:08 pm

I see Nancy Rees-Mogg has (re)joined her brother:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50672611

The Brexit Party are such a wild card in this election. I do see them taking votes from Labour in Labour constituencies that voted Leave, but the big question is whether they'll take enough votes for the Tories to come through and take the seats. I really don't know what to expect.

My hope is that all they'll do is split the Leave vote and prevent the Conservatives winning the seats they need to get a majority.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:28 pm

The other thing I'm wondering is whether the Tories' line that we can't do anything until we've 'got Brexit done' is a bit of a mistake. If you've stopped saying how wonderful Brexit is in its own right, and reduced it to an encumbrance, that in theory makes people wonder what its merits are, and it also draws into focus that there's an easier way of getting rid of the encumbrance, which is to ditch the thing altogether.

I really can't tell you when was the last time I heard a Conservative MP say that Brexit was a good thing for any reason other than it allows us to move on.

by lostinwales Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:30 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1202521499581575172

That thread is fascinating

The Party's response has been characterised by: {i} denial; {ii} discrediting of victims; {iii} defence of perpetrators; {iv} cover ups; and {v} active victimisation of those calling out antisemitism.

This line strikes a cord. Interaction with the 'corbynistas' seems to be based on them applying a label to the person they disagree with that allows them to automatically discount anything they say (e.g. 'Blairite', 'centrist', etc). (And yes I am aware of using a label myself here)

Worth saying for balance that I would some similarities if you were to examine some Conservative party membership attitudes. The nutters have taken over both parties.

by LordDowlais Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:02 pm

The Labour party has moved so far away from it's roots, and the morals it stood for over the years, I do not think you can call them the Labour party anymore.

They need to be called something else, because they do not stand for the traditional Labour values anymore.

Home rule, democratic government, no monopoly, justice for the laboured, to name a few. These values have been totally lost on today's Labour party.

by **LondonTiger** Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:26 pm

As the Labour Party was created at the start of the last century and born out of the nascent Union Movement and small Socialist parties I would argue that the current manifesto is most definitely a hark back to it's roots.

Socialism was enshrined in it's first official constitution and it was only the removal of clause IV in the 90s that removed this. Momentum have to a large degree seized control of the party and moved it leftwards again. Unfortunately with a leader as intellectually challenged, lazy yet dogmatic as Corbyn it seems no pragmatism will be found.

Still the manifesto looks to improve the lot of the downtrodden and reduce the unfairness of modern British society. The current Labour Party is most definitely closer to it's traditional values and roots than New Labour were - just less electable.

by LordDowlais Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:35 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Still the manifesto looks to improve the lot of the downtrodden and reduce the unfairness of modern British society. The current Labour Party is most definitely closer to it's traditional values and roots than New Labour were - just less electable.

I disagree. 100%.

At what time ever has a Labour party wanted to increase the tax the workingman pays ?

by **LondonTiger** Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:38 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Still the manifesto looks to improve the lot of the downtrodden and reduce the unfairness of modern British society. The current Labour Party is most definitely closer to it's traditional values and roots than New Labour were - just less electable.

I disagree. 100%.

At what time ever has a Labour party wanted to increase the tax the workingman pays ?

Who says the current one wants to?

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:16 pm

bsando wrote:Corbyn's biggest challenge? Getting the Babyboomer, middle to upper income, sitting on a comfortable pension, smooth sailing career and housing market generation to back him. I can't see it happening. There's a huge chunk of 50-70 year olds who will be unable to relate to his position and policies. Counting on younger voters, those from ethnic minorities, cities and Scotland will be only way Corbyn can swing a small majority.

I will vote Labour (I'm a member actually) and will be better off for it but there are many who will probably lose some income due to the higher tax and regulations that will ensue from their policies.

He doesn't seem to get that, does he? He needs more than his 'core' vote to go for Labour in order to form a Government. He has to convince floating voters and he either doesn't seem to care two hoots or thinks he doesn't need them.

by LordDowlais Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:07 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Still the manifesto looks to improve the lot of the downtrodden and reduce the unfairness of modern British society. The current Labour Party is most definitely closer to it's traditional values and roots than New Labour were - just less electable.

I disagree. 100%.

At what time ever has a Labour party wanted to increase the tax the workingman pays ?

Who says the current one wants to?

Have you not read their tax policies on their manifesto ?

by No 7&1/2 Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:48 pm

Presumably you're bothered about changes to the dividends tax for your business and change to the pensions. Balanced by pu lick sector workers finally getting pay rises in line with inflation and beyond and better pensions?

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:14 pm

Sajid Javid fact-checked:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50673131

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:16 pm

Doesn't matter what they say. It's all unicorn pie-in-the-sky stuff w/o any proper explanation of where the money is coming from or being honest and saying it'll cost all of us a shedload.

To be clear, the Tories are talking utter bollox as well.

Tell you what, I'll offer you loads of free stuff if you elect me as PM. More police? You got it. More money for NHS? You got it. More on education? Yep, all yours. Free broadband? No problem. Etc. Anyone can do this, but it's not believable is it? Nor has there been any real attempt at explaining exactly how it's costed or what will happen if the wealthy (individuals or corporations) simply don't play ball.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:18 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Sajid Javid fact-checked:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50673131

Ta. No surprise there, eh? This is the man who's the Chancellor. FFS! Moron, blatant liar or some of both? The latter, probably.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:30 pm

It's so frustrating, and more than a little sad. They had to lie about Brexit to squeak the referendum in 2016, and they're still having to lie about it to hope to get into power again.

The whole cabinet has seen that it'll hit the economy. They also know full well the next stage will take years. Yet they won't level with the public about it.

Lying's all they have. A contemptible party.

by **LondonTiger** Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:49 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Still the manifesto looks to improve the lot of the downtrodden and reduce the unfairness of modern British society. The current Labour Party is most definitely closer to it's traditional values and roots than New Labour were - just less electable.

I disagree. 100%.

At what time ever has a Labour party wanted to increase the tax the workingman pays ?

Who says the current one wants to?

Have you not read their tax policies on their manifesto ?

I have. As the Finance Director of the business I set up with friends and family it would be foolish of me not to. None of the stated policies involve an intentional increased tax burden on normal workers. Different economists will state the impact of their manifesto and potential unintended outcomes.

Under their policies our business may have to pay more tax, our workers should not. We'll some of the contractors may, depending on how they set their affairs, as they could be over the targeted 85k income. They may belly ache, but under the Tory policies the business would not be in a position to hire them, so for very well paid workers losing 5% of something is better than keeping 5% of nothing.

by super_realist Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:56 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Sajid Javid fact-checked:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50673131

Ta. No surprise there, eh? This is the man who's the Chancellor. FFS! Moron, blatant liar or some of both? The latter, probably.

Have you seen McDonnell's? He claims your average family will be £6000 better off a year. I actually heard an economist laugh at that claim on radio.

There's no point in taking sides on this though. Neither the Tory or Labour manifesto has stood up to scrutiny, and the IFS has said that both are deeply unworkable, better still no one believes them.

by super_realist Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:58 am

bsando wrote:Corbyn's biggest challenge? Getting the Babyboomer, middle to upper income, sitting on a comfortable pension, smooth sailing career and housing market generation to back him. I can't see it happening. There's a huge chunk of 50-70 year olds who will be unable to relate to his position and policies. Counting on younger voters, those from ethnic minorities, cities and Scotland will be only way Corbyn can swing a small majority.

I will vote Labour (I'm a member actually) and will be better off for it but there are many who will probably lose some income due to the higher tax and regulations that will ensue from their policies.

Scotland? You do realise that Labour has a minimal footprint in Scotland right? It's unfortunately ruled by the intolerant, bigoted SNP and Labour are predicted to fall to even fewer MP's after next week.

Corbyn is a dead man walking literally and figuratively. Why would the Labour party want to have such a buffoon in charge? It's obvious to anyone that in order to be an effective opposition they need to move away from this damaging far left position, ditch Momentum. Unless they do, they are directly responsible for there being a Tory government.

The role of the opposition is to be effective and to provide a viable opposition to the government, Labour under Corbyn are not even close. It should be like a football club, if the party were a football club, Corbyn would have been sacked years ago.

by **Pr4wn** Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:27 am

super_realist wrote:
bsando wrote:Corbyn's biggest challenge? Getting the Babyboomer, middle to upper income, sitting on a comfortable pension, smooth sailing career and housing market generation to back him. I can't see it happening. There's a huge chunk of 50-70 year olds who will be unable to relate to his position and policies. Counting on younger voters, those from ethnic minorities, cities and Scotland will be only way Corbyn can swing a small majority.

I will vote Labour (I'm a member actually) and will be better off for it but there are many who will probably lose some income due to the higher tax and regulations that will ensue from their policies.

Scotland? You do realise that Labour has a minimal footprint in Scotland right? It's unfortunately ruled by the intolerant, bigoted SNP and Labour are predicted to fall to even fewer MP's after next week.

Corbyn is a dead man walking literally and figuratively. Why would the Labour party want to have such a buffoon in charge? It's obvious to anyone that in order to be an effective opposition they need to move away from this damaging far left position, ditch Momentum. Unless they do, they are directly responsible for there being a Tory government.

The role of the opposition is to be effective and to provide a viable opposition to the government, Labour under Corbyn are not even close. It should be like a football club, if the party were a football club, Corbyn would have been sacked years ago.

Do you know what literally means?

by **Pr4wn** Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:30 am

But I agree that Labour is a non-literal dead duck at the moment. They're in desperate need of new leadership and some more realistic policies.

by **Hero** Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:32 am

Pr4wn wrote:
super_realist wrote:
bsando wrote:Corbyn's biggest challenge? Getting the Babyboomer, middle to upper income, sitting on a comfortable pension, smooth sailing career and housing market generation to back him. I can't see it happening. There's a huge chunk of 50-70 year olds who will be unable to relate to his position and policies. Counting on younger voters, those from ethnic minorities, cities and Scotland will be only way Corbyn can swing a small majority.

I will vote Labour (I'm a member actually) and will be better off for it but there are many who will probably lose some income due to the higher tax and regulations that will ensue from their policies.

Scotland? You do realise that Labour has a minimal footprint in Scotland right? It's unfortunately ruled by the intolerant, bigoted SNP and Labour are predicted to fall to even fewer MP's after next week.

Corbyn is a dead man walking literally and figuratively. Why would the Labour party want to have such a buffoon in charge? It's obvious to anyone that in order to be an effective opposition they need to move away from this damaging far left position, ditch Momentum. Unless they do, they are directly responsible for there being a Tory government.

The role of the opposition is to be effective and to provide a viable opposition to the government, Labour under Corbyn are not even close. It should be like a football club, if the party were a football club, Corbyn would have been sacked years ago.

Do you know what literally means?

Sun headline tomorrow:

Zombie Corbyn eats Rabbi brains shocker

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:33 am

He was speaking at something or other just before I left for work. He is deeply uninspiring.

by Duty281 Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:36 am

The word ‘literally’ was lost long ago, and can be correctly used in the way Super’s post did.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10240917/Uproar-as-OED-includes-erroneous-use-of-literally.html

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:25 am

Pr4wn wrote:
super_realist wrote:
bsando wrote:Corbyn's biggest challenge? Getting the Babyboomer, middle to upper income, sitting on a comfortable pension, smooth sailing career and housing market generation to back him. I can't see it happening. There's a huge chunk of 50-70 year olds who will be unable to relate to his position and policies. Counting on younger voters, those from ethnic minorities, cities and Scotland will be only way Corbyn can swing a small majority.

I will vote Labour (I'm a member actually) and will be better off for it but there are many who will probably lose some income due to the higher tax and regulations that will ensue from their policies.

Scotland? You do realise that Labour has a minimal footprint in Scotland right? It's unfortunately ruled by the intolerant, bigoted SNP and Labour are predicted to fall to even fewer MP's after next week.

Corbyn is a dead man walking literally and figuratively. Why would the Labour party want to have such a buffoon in charge? It's obvious to anyone that in order to be an effective opposition they need to move away from this damaging far left position, ditch Momentum. Unless they do, they are directly responsible for there being a Tory government.

The role of the opposition is to be effective and to provide a viable opposition to the government, Labour under Corbyn are not even close. It should be like a football club, if the party were a football club, Corbyn would have been sacked years ago.

Do you know what literally means?

Interesting. Is that a case of playing the man rather than the ball?

by Sponsored content

Which party will you vote for?