Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[Damocles]

I think that answers the points you raised, mull it over, ignore it, it's entirely up to you.

Answers?! It doesn't even address them!

And I love the "divide and rule is such a bad thing but oh by the way you pretend Tories hijacked the Labour Party and don't give a shit about social justice". It's like you can't read your own posts.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The Tories were there for the taking. You fluffed it.

Take it up with Damocles, according to his last post he voted for Corbyn twice in the leadership elections and yet he believes...

Corbyn is unelectable because he doesn't appeal to Middle England.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Answers?! It doesn't even address them!

And I love the "divide and rule is such a bad thing but oh by the way you pretend Tories hijacked the Labour Party and don't give a shit about social justice". It's like you can't read your own posts.

Well, maybe that's something we have in common.

 

[Damocles]

Take it up with Damocles, according to his last post he voted for Corbyn twice in the leadership elections and yet he believes...

Because Corbyn had the best shot of the bunch presented due to the momentum and energy behind him.

Again you are looking at this like you're some sort of alien who doesn't understand human beings at all.

Jeremy Corbyn WAS an electable Labour leader. Over the course of the campaign he became an unelectable Labour leader when the PLP undercut him, the manifesto went too far left on some very easy to point to economic issues that the electorate wouldn't like, and because him and his team were heavily linked to the IRA and we couldn't get the message through the noise to shift it. Then due to these issues he became unelectable, with the terrorist one being the biggest issue IMO but debateably so.

See how that works? That if you don't have a zealoted belief in something that you can change your mind on an issue without it being a religious war when new ideas or information is presented?

 

[Chippy_boy]

sorry misunderstood
how are you going to distinguish between those low paid jobs that cant be transitioned into high paid jobs and low paid jobs that just exploit the workers,like mike ashley?
or is subsidising the likes of mike ashley a price that is worth paying?
if it is a price worth paying how do you make sure that employers like mike ashley dont proliferate leading to high unsustainable government subsidy?

I don't. I simply suggest that for those people who don't earn enough to manage, then as a decent society we need to give them some state support. Employers should pay what they feel is appropriate to attract the numbers and quality of staff they need. If they need 4 employees and offer £8/h and get 4 takers, fine. If they only get 3 takers, perhaps they'd need to offer £8.50

And we pick up the tab for people who cannot manage. It's as simple as that.

It's not ideal, but as I *keep* saying, I can think of no alternative that actually works. Forcing Mike Ashley - or whoever to pay £x per hour - will not work. It's ok in the margins, with a little increase here or there, but slap big fat increases on, and he'll lay people off. Necessarily, to stay in business.

 

[Magicpole]

Traitors and plotters against the Party hey? Maybe some of final solution is needed against the Bolshevik, I mean Blairite threat?

Final solution? Please.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Take it up with Damocles, according to his last post he voted for Corbyn twice in the leadership elections and yet he believes...

What would you have him do, vote UKIP? There's no contradiction in what he said, none at all.

 

[worsleyweb]

What was Labour's majority going in to the 2010 election?

No idea - what was it?

And does Chabal still post on here?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Because Corbyn had the best shot of the bunch presented due to the momentum and energy behind him.

Again you are looking at this like you're some sort of alien who doesn't understand human beings at all.

Jeremy Corbyn WAS an electable Labour leader. Over the course of the campaign he became an unelectable Labour leader when the PLP undercut him, the manifesto went too far left on some very easy to point to economic issues that the electorate wouldn't like, and because him and his team were heavily linked to the IRA and we couldn't get the message through the noise to shift it. Then due to these issues he became unelectable, with the terrorist one being the biggest issue IMO but debateably so.

See how that works? That if you don't have a zealoted belief in something that you can change your mind on an issue without it being a religious war when new ideas or information is presented?

Your timelines are a bit peculiar, I'm not quite sure at what point Corbyn became unelectable in your eyes. The vote of no confidence by the PLP triggered the second leadership challenge, in which you voted for Corbyn and of course preceded the election campaign, which produced the manifesto, a manifesto credited with giving Corbyn a real boost, so tell me, what was it, precisely, about this socialist manifesto, drafted by an avowed socialist, that took you by surprise?

Corbyn's IRA links have been knocking around for some time, at which moment over the last two years did it tip over in to being an issue?

Oh, I'm interested to know, why is it that to believe in something is zealotry and yet to believe in something, then believe in something else and then nothing at all is pragmatic?

I understand politics, as in life, it is essential to compromise, the Labour party knows that, but there is a line where compromise becomes capitulation, its name is New Labour.

 

[The perfect fumble]

What would you have him do, vote UKIP? There's no contradiction in what he said, none at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think either Nigel Farage or Paul Nuttal stood in the Labour leadership elections.