Local Elections

Family stuff
Always the innocent victim, always put upon, always Mr Reasonable, crying to the mods.

Everyone can see what you're doing here.

All the points I've made that you've ignored, all the arguments you've chosen to swerve, all the facts I've quoted that go unchallanged, of all of that, can you at least explain why, if there is no alternative, this happened....

Election 2005, Tony Blair, Labour Leader, 9,552,436 votes, 35.2 %

Election 2010, Gordon Brown, Labour Leader, 8,609,527 votes, 29%

Election 2015, Ed Miliband, Labour Leader, 9,347,273 votes, 30.4%

Election 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader, 12,878,460 votes, 40%

Otherwise, you are everything you accuse me of being.
Family commitments so still not able to reply properly or read your recent ramblings.

But with regard this latest nonsense - I have indeed replied and and addressed your 'selective' stats - see it within my post a couple up.

In fact I have exposed the extent to which you are either selective and disingenuous in the way you post such stats or you are completely unable to assess/analyse/understand basic facts.

Not for your benefit I assume, because I suspect that the fact is that you know the reality but hide behind bluster, but for others:

The clue is with regard to the areas I bolded and explained 'Metropolitan areas'.

Are you going to stop replying now or do you really need to make a bigger fool of yourself?
 
Family stuff

Family commitments so still not able to reply properly or read your recent ramblings.

But with regard this latest nonsense - I have indeed replied and and addressed your 'selective' stats - see it within my post a couple up.

In fact I have exposed the extent to which you are either selective and disingenuous in the way you post such stats or you are completely unable to assess/analyse/understand basic facts.

Not for your benefit I assume, because I suspect that the fact is that you know the reality but hide behind bluster, but for others:

The clue is with regard to the areas I bolded and explained 'Metropolitan areas'.

Are you going to stop replying now or do you really need to make a bigger fool of yourself?

You don't know much about this stuff.

I thought you might be a troll at first, what with all the ignoring the point and trying to get people banned.

But now it's become clear that you repeat yourself over and over, for no other reason than you don't know enough to do anything else, and, it seems, you're becoming uncomfortably aware of it.

You should spend more time with your family.
 
Last edited:
You don't know much about this stuff.

I thought you might be a troll at first, what with all the ignoring the point and trying to get people banned.

But now it's become clear that you repeat yourself over and over, for no other reason than you don't know enough to do anything else, and, it seems, you're becoming uncomfortably aware of it.

You should spend more time with your family.
Aww bless

You might fool some - even yourself - but for anyone objective (and, likely to your dismay, there are lots of those), some simple facts to show what a charlatan you are:

Amongst a bunch of bluster and bollocks you post:

"Election 2005, Tony Blair, Labour Leader, 9,552,436 votes, 35.2 %
Election 2010, Gordon Brown, Labour Leader, 8,609,527 votes, 29%
Election 2015, Ed Miliband, Labour Leader, 9,347,273 votes, 30.4%
Election 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader, 12,878,460 votes, 40%"

Claiming this to be profound 'evidence' of how you are showing my comments to be bollocks...........

But in reality your ramblings have nothing to do with the point(s) I make and you are either a dissembling fraud or simply not able to face facts - these are the only possible 2 options IMO.

I say:

"In a starkly perverse sense - people like you are not important with regard to the next election - you are already committed. By the same token Chippy is equally unimportant as he is also totally committed. It is the very many people like me, a past Labour voter living outside the metropolitan areas, that have to become comfortable enough to vote Labour again - which will not happen if they consolidate towards the far-left. Whilst that may not sit comfortably with you - it is another simple fact."

Because this is fact - you are either just stupid with regard to how FPTP elections work in the UK - or more likely - IMHO - just deceitful.

In 1997 - Labour achieved 418 seats with 13.5m votes (43%)
In 2001 - labour achieved 413 seats with 10.7m votes (40%)

So compare that to your irrelevant bollocks - for the purpose of pure distraction I suspect -

"Election 2005, Tony Blair, Labour Leader, 9,552,436 votes, 35.2 %
Election 2010, Gordon Brown, Labour Leader, 8,609,527 votes, 29%
Election 2015, Ed Miliband, Labour Leader, 9,347,273 votes, 30.4%
Election 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader, 12,878,460 votes, 40%"

I notice that you neglected to add the number of seats won by Labour..........

2005 - 355
2010 - 258
2015 - 232
2017 - 262

So ?? does that simple maths not mean that in 2001 Labour got 40% of the vote and achieved 413 seats and in 2017 Labour achieved the same 40% of the vote and got 51 seats less.

Now this question is not aimed at you or any other persons that suffer from being 'hard of objectivity' - but rather to those others on this forum - people with the ability to analyse and be honest and therefore can understand the logic of why I said that:

"In a starkly perverse sense - people like you are not important with regard to the next election - you are already committed. By the same token Chippy is equally unimportant as he is also totally committed. It is the very many people like me, a past Labour voter living outside the metropolitan areas, that have to become comfortable enough to vote Labour again - which will not happen if they consolidate towards the far-left. Whilst that may not sit comfortably with you - it is another simple fact."

The UK electoral system is based on a number of seats won - not the percentage of votes - hence (really not rocket science) Labour need to win seats away from the Metropolitan areas - just google a map of the spread of Labour seats won in 1997 (to help):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997

with the map in 2017:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

Spot the difference.

Now please just fuck off and leave me alone and stop interfering when other posters are trying to talk to each other. You may think that you have some special rights on this forum - some special standing that means that you can just seek to stop other people having a sensible discussion - but I really think that you are deluding yourself.

You are just another poster - but it seems one who's sense of balance is limited to having chips on both shoulders.
 
Last edited:
Your opinion is worth nothing because it is based on nothing, in fact it is worse than nothing, as it is opinion that flies in the face of facts. You grind out this vacuous nonsense over and over, not because it is evidence based, but because you want it to be so.

Election 2005, Tony Blair, Labour Leader, 9,552,436 votes, 35.2 %

Election 2010, Gordon Brown, Labour Leader, 8,609,527 votes, 29%

Election 2015, Ed Miliband, Labour Leader, 9,347,273 votes, 30.4%

Election 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader, 12,878,460 votes, 40%

The Tories are not going to hold an election any time soon because they fear they''ll lose, and their fear is not irrational, their pollsters have told them this. This is the reality of politics right now and why am I certain of these things? Because the evidence all around me points in that direction, not the blindness of the political zealot but cold hard evidence.

You don't have any facts to back up your half baked nonsense, that is why your posts are nothing more than hyperbole, a broken record endlessly repeating over and over "middle way, middle way, middle way".

That is why, and you'll enjoy this because I'm repeating it, you are the worst poster in here by a country mile.
Although your election numbers are correct, you’re comparing a virtual 3 party system then with a virtual two party system now. Even though Corbyn’s numbers appear impressive, May got 42.4% of the votes, a percentage no conservative leader has got since 1979. I hope I’m wrong about Labours chances of winning an election but I fear he has peaked and we are in for more of the same or worse.
 
Although your election numbers are correct, you’re comparing a virtual 3 party system then with a virtual two party system now. Even though Corbyn’s numbers appear impressive, May got 42.4% of the votes, a percentage no conservative leader has got since 1979. I hope I’m wrong about Labours chances of winning an election but I fear he has peaked and we are in for more of the same or worse.

Don't believe the hype. Corbyn went in to that election in the mid 20s and look where Labour ended up. Between now and the next election there is nothing but one disaster after another awaiting May, her numbers have only one way to go. The establishment wants you to believe that Corbyn has peaked and that the local elections were a stalemate, neither of those things is true.

The establishment continues to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Corbyn, they don't do that because they think he's politically impotent, they do it because they know he isn't.

Corbyn has one thing on his side, above all other things, he's on the right side of the argument.
 
Last edited:
Aww bless

You might fool some - even yourself - but for anyone objective (and, likely to your dismay, there are lots of those), some simple facts to show what a charlatan you are:

Amongst a bunch of bluster and bollocks you post:

"Election 2005, Tony Blair, Labour Leader, 9,552,436 votes, 35.2 %
Election 2010, Gordon Brown, Labour Leader, 8,609,527 votes, 29%
Election 2015, Ed Miliband, Labour Leader, 9,347,273 votes, 30.4%
Election 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader, 12,878,460 votes, 40%"

Claiming this to be profound 'evidence' of how you are showing my comments to be bollocks...........

But in reality your ramblings have nothing to do with the point(s) I make and you are either a dissembling fraud or simply not able to face facts - these are the only possible 2 options IMO.

I say:

"In a starkly perverse sense - people like you are not important with regard to the next election - you are already committed. By the same token Chippy is equally unimportant as he is also totally committed. It is the very many people like me, a past Labour voter living outside the metropolitan areas, that have to become comfortable enough to vote Labour again - which will not happen if they consolidate towards the far-left. Whilst that may not sit comfortably with you - it is another simple fact."

Because this is fact - you are either just stupid with regard to how FPTP elections work in the UK - or more likely - IMHO - just deceitful.

In 1997 - Labour achieved 418 seats with 13.5m votes (43%)
In 2001 - labour achieved 413 seats with 10.7m votes (40%)

So compare that to your irrelevant bollocks - for the purpose of pure distraction I suspect -

"Election 2005, Tony Blair, Labour Leader, 9,552,436 votes, 35.2 %
Election 2010, Gordon Brown, Labour Leader, 8,609,527 votes, 29%
Election 2015, Ed Miliband, Labour Leader, 9,347,273 votes, 30.4%
Election 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Leader, 12,878,460 votes, 40%"

I notice that you neglected to add the number of seats won by Labour..........

2005 - 355
2010 - 258
2015 - 232
2017 - 262

So ?? does that simple maths not mean that in 2001 Labour got 40% of the vote and achieved 413 seats and in 2017 Labour achieved the same 40% of the vote and got 51 seats less.

Now this question is not aimed at you or any other persons that suffer from being 'hard of objectivity' - but rather to those others on this forum - people with the ability to analyse and be honest and therefore can understand the logic of why I said that:

"In a starkly perverse sense - people like you are not important with regard to the next election - you are already committed. By the same token Chippy is equally unimportant as he is also totally committed. It is the very many people like me, a past Labour voter living outside the metropolitan areas, that have to become comfortable enough to vote Labour again - which will not happen if they consolidate towards the far-left. Whilst that may not sit comfortably with you - it is another simple fact."

The UK electoral system is based on a number of seats won - not the percentage of votes - hence (really not rocket science) Labour need to win seats away from the Metropolitan areas - just google a map of the spread of Labour seats won in 1997 (to help):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997

with the map in 2017:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

Spot the difference.

Now please just fuck off and leave me alone and stop interfering when other posters are trying to talk to each other. You may think that you have some special rights on this forum - some special standing that means that you can just seek to stop other people having a sensible discussion - but I really think that you are deluding yourself.

You are just another poster - but it seems one who's sense of balance is limited to having chips on both shoulders.

It's okay to tell people to fuck off now is it? Or is it just okay for you?
 
Because the ordinary man who works will end up paying the tax to support the labour spending.
As op
Because the ordinary man who works will end up paying the tax to support the labour spending.
At least they'd be spending it though (supposedly), seems like at the moment it's being hoarded and distributed amongst friends. I could well be wrong but personally I'm no better off under this lot than I was before, so I don't see how they're helping the working man.
 
It's okay to tell people to fuck off now is it? Or is it just okay for you?
Well OK - I will apologise for saying fuck off - despite you having previously said the same.

At least you seem to have just had an epiphany and recognised that what I have posted proves me to be correct and blows away your bluster - so good enough for me
 
As op

At least they'd be spending it though (supposedly), seems like at the moment it's being hoarded and distributed amongst friends. I could well be wrong but personally I'm no better off under this lot than I was before, so I don't see how they're helping the working man.


er figs show that we are all substantially worse off over 8 years of austerity - which is predicted to continue for some years to come. Occasionally for month the average earnings rise above the inflation rate and its pounced upon by Govt supporters as proof that the wage freeze is over - then the next month it dips and it isn't - but that seldom gets reported. Add into that the odd 0.01% increase over inflation does fuck all to make up the something like 20% real terms fall due to inflation and the falling pound since 2010
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.