Starmer is a lying rat/Corbyn was chuffing useless - discuss

LessoftheLip said:
#76 and #78.

It's like competing solo against a tag team wrestling duo. I can't keep up.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean so I'll simplify it. I asked you to provide evidence of Roger Waters' antiSemitism. Your reply is:

"Answering on behalf of BBG again I see.
I require context before replying to him."

Is that it?
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
I know what you mean so I'll simplify it. I asked you to provide evidence of Roger Waters' antiSemitism. Your reply is:

"Answering on behalf of BBG again I see.
I require context before replying to him."

Is that it?
Click to expand...
No, my post #78 was intended to be a reply to Scrote's post #76 which itself is a reply to my post #75 which queried what it is you meant in your post #74. Then in your post #77 you declined to answer the query I posed in my post #75.

Hope that's cleared things up for you 👍
 
LessoftheLip said:
No, my post #78 was intended to be a reply to Scrote's post #76 which itself is a reply to my post #75 which queried what it is you meant in your post #74. Then in your post #77 you declined to answer the query I posed in my post #75.

Hope that's cleared things up for you 👍
Click to expand...
And if I follow that, it will lead to your evidence?
 
LessoftheLip said:
No, my post #78 was intended to be a reply to Scrote's post #76 which itself is a reply to my post #75 which queried what it is you meant in your post #74. Then in your post #77 you declined to answer the query I posed in my post #75.

Hope that's cleared things up for you 👍
Click to expand...
But my post #76 was a response to you accusing people of swerving the question from post #66

I used post #75 as the basis because it was an example of you ignoring a question and setting off on a new train-of-thought.

You ignored my question in post #67 so I wasn't sure if that was actually an example of 'swerving'. I'm not fully up to speed with your rules.

I'll make it easier and drop out so that you can answer BBG's query about Roger Waters (posts #72 & #77).
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
And if I follow that, it will lead to your evidence?
Click to expand...
You suggested that I disappeared from the board and returned with a different username all to avoid answering your question.

When I pointed out how utterly ridiculous that suggestion was you said "It was probably a culmination of things actually".

I don't know what you meant by that so I asked for clarification which you declined to give.
 
LessoftheLip said:
You suggested that I disappeared from the board and returned with a different username all to avoid answering your question.

When I pointed out how utterly ridiculous that suggestion was you said "It was probably a culmination of things actually".

I don't know what you meant by that so I asked for clarification which you declined to give.
Click to expand...
How arrogant do you have to be to demand answers from everyone you engage with and accuse them of swerving questions if they don't comply, whilst the whole time you are doing the best impression of Franz Klammer imaginable? Your concern at my use of the word culmination is just another diversion tactic which has nothing to do with the original subject matter.

In short, you're grasping at straws to deflect from your own prevarication.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Your concern at my use of the word culmination is just another diversion tactic which has nothing to do with the original subject matter.
Click to expand...
No I just want you to explain what you meant using the term "culmination of things" in respect of my "disappearance from the board". You've made a baseless accusation so before I reply to what you consider to be the original subject matter (it isn't really though is it?) I'm simply asking you to make clear what it is you meant.
 
LessoftheLip said:
No I just want you to explain what you meant using the term "culmination of things" in respect of my "disappearance from the board". You've made a baseless accusation so before I reply to what you consider to be the original subject matter (it isn't really though is it?) I'm simply asking you to make clear what it is you meant.
Click to expand...

LessoftheLip said:
Can you tell me what you mean by 'culmination of things'.
Click to expand...
I meant that you were right that it wasn't a single comment from me (or anybody else for that matter) that caused you to leave the board. OK?
 
1finny said:
I’ve not heard 1 person blame Brexit on Corbyn.
Lots of other generalisations in your observations too.

Both prob decent people trying to get elected.
Both have prob got principles and, in the face of media scrutiny compromised.
Don’t know how JC would have led the country.
Hopefully we will find out with KS - then we judge.
Click to expand...
I've put some of the blame on him before. He's not the reason it was lost, nowhere near, but if he had been a lot more vocally pro EU, been a better leader, then remain could have easily got another couple of percent, and that's all it would have took. Lots of people with a small amount of impact can really change outcomes in big ways.

The red wall was completely lost to brexit too, it was the main reason brexit happened, it was one JC's main jobs to ensure the red wall don't inflict self harm, but it never worked. In fact I'd probably say the brexit vote should have been more of a priority for him than trying to actually win the election, as he was never going to win either of the elections. He might have even scared some people to the right, who then went on to vote Brexit, who knows, some idiots will have done that.
 
Corbyn was a very decent person with great hypothetical policies, but a poor leader, poor strategist, was too soft, could not control his party and could not handle or make himself less of a target for the press. He got beat by May and BJ, which says a lot unfortunately.

Starmer is a decent person, he certainly wants policies more left than his party or he himself has indicated (no manifesto yet mind), but crucially he's the first bloke since Blair to realise that policies don't mean ****, unless you win. Starmer's saw off BJ, Truss and possibly Sunak soon too, and when he wins the GE a load of the FRNJ MP clowns will lose their seats and voice, that alone is going to be massive.

Nice polices when you lose can have the opposite effect to what you want, as things you have polices for will end up even even worse state after another loss, as the other party will go in the complete other direction to them, underfund them, either that or the other party steals them which means you've lost an ace.

To win you 100% need to not be a media target, or be able to make yourself or your party or your cabinet less of target. Win first, then change things, as you can't change anything if you lose, things just get much worse, making it harder for the next Labour leader. It takes an element of trust to understand what Startmer's doing, and vote for this, but there's going to be ~400 MP's chewing his ear off, in the right direction regardless.

It's gonna take a lot more than 1 term to make much happen mind, or to rebuild much, probably going to take equal time to what the Tories have been in power.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Corbyn actually spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet, so I guess some of the blame should be placed on them.
Click to expand...
I believe that Corbyn's main issue when it comes to Brexit want so much the referendum but the 2019 election. Johnson was clearly campaigning on a single issue. Get Brexit done. Had Corbyn addressed this, the tories would probably still have won but with a slender enough or no majority and he would have been in the same position as may.

This was the crux of why I say Corbyn had to shoulder some of the reasonability for where we are.
 
Laughing said:
I believe that Corbyn's main issue when it comes to Brexit want so much the referendum but the 2019 election. Johnson was clearly campaigning on a single issue. Get Brexit done. Had Corbyn addressed this, the tories would probably still have won but with a slender enough or no majority and he would have been in the same position as may.

This was the crux of why I say Corbyn had to shoulder some of the reasonability for where we are.
Click to expand...
Corbyn did table an amendment in 2019 for a much softer Brexit including staying in the customs union ,and the Irish border problem would have been solved. Caroline Lucas and about 10 right wing labour MPs voted against it and it lost by three votes.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Corbyn did table an amendment in 2019 for a much softer Brexit including staying in the customs union ,and the Irish border problem would have been solved. Caroline Lucas and about 10 right wing labour MPs voted against it and it lost by three votes.
Click to expand...
His presentation of labours position during the 2019 election was laughable though Bbg.

I could see that it may appear sensible to agree a deal then let they're be a people's choice. What it completely ignored was how fed up people were with the impasse. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of remainers voted for the tories just to get rid of Brexit. Not saying that was sensible but there was a fair amount of brexit fatigue and government was hamstrung.

Corbyn and the wider labour party screwed it up.
 
Scrote said:
It's pretty obvious really.

A bunch of largely middle-class centrists blame Corbyn for Brexit - despite both his constituency and his Labour party members voting massively in favour of Remain.
They blame him for two election defeats despite having the full force of the British media thrown at him and having no support from his own Parliamentary Party (MPs).
They also claim that he should have stood down after a vote of no confidence because that's the democratic thing to do but don't care that the PLP ignored the democratic wishes of the membership (twice).
They will claim he was a terrible leader but won't define what they think good leadership qualities are.
They will claim he's a poor politician despite being returned to the same constituency seat for over 35 years (10 elections).
They think his track record of attempting to broker peace in various theatres and his protests against e.g. apartheid South Africa make him an unsuitable candidate for Labour leader as it gave the media ammunition to use against him.
And he looked scruffy once when he was on his allotment.

Essentially they prefer someone who looks like a middle-manager at an IT conglomerate who has never done anything remotely left-wing, so there's nothing the press can point at. A knighthood and membership of some elite bodies also helps to show he's really one of the people. And the middle name Rodney as they all loved Only Fools and Horses back in the day.
Click to expand...
I thought that was about it, what I can’t understand is why us cheeky working class people still swallow anything that the mainstream media serve up.
Some people are desperate to doff the cap at over entitled public schoolboys and other people they see as their betters. It’s about time we shook things up a bit.
Mind, when you look across the globe, it seems you have to be a bit of a self serving megalomaniac cvnt to be successful in politics, anyone who looks as though he might make a dent in the finances of those with too much money to begin with is cast as the antichrist.
It reminds me of the chapter in the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist, when the working class blokes were encouraged to throw stones at the socialists, who they were told would destabilise things.
Some folks are just desperate to be mindless slaves.
 
Laughing said:
His presentation of labours position during the 2019 election was laughable though Bbg.

I could see that it may appear sensible to agree a deal then let they're be a people's choice. What it completely ignored was how fed up people were with the impasse. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of remainers voted for the tories just to get rid of Brexit. Not saying that was sensible but there was a fair amount of brexit fatigue and government was hamstrung.

Corbyn and the wider labour party screwed it up.
Click to expand...
So it wasn't Corbyn's position that you disagreed with it was the fact that people were fed up and needed easy solutions to difficult problems and Corbyn couldn't deliver that impossibility.

The fact you have to tie yourself on knots to make the Labour position appear to be complicated sums up the fact that none of this actually had anything to do with Brexit and was all just a concerted push to make sure anything vaguely socialist got no mainstream traction. My memory of the post-Brexit era was of a lot of very annoyed people doing whatever they could to keep us in the EU. The idea that they just abandoned that cause through fatigue is ridiculous. They abandoned it because they saw Corbynism as a greater threat to their finances than a Tory led Brexit.

You keep complaining about these discussions going round in circles but this has all been discusssed previously and the option Labour put forward was about as sensible as it could get, given the position the country was in. You seem to be saying that the right-wing media clouding the issue is Corbyn's fault, purely because he was Corbyn. And then you let that slide as if there's no option but to happily accept the right-wing influence on all our lives.
 
Last edited:
Laughing said:
His presentation of labours position during the 2019 election was laughable though Bbg.

I could see that it may appear sensible to agree a deal then let they're be a people's choice. What it completely ignored was how fed up people were with the impasse. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of remainers voted for the tories just to get rid of Brexit. Not saying that was sensible but there was a fair amount of brexit fatigue and government was hamstrung.

Corbyn and the wider labour party screwed it up.
Click to expand...
Fully agree with this.

Corbyn’s refusal to rule out a second referendum (we’ll have one if the people later decide they want one) was what cost him and Labour the election. Or certainly resulted in the trouncing they got.

It was simple. “We will respect the outcome of the referendum” was all he had to say. He might not have won but we wouldn’t have had the Boris landslide horror show we got.

Just because the referendum was a stupid idea with a self-sabotaging outcome didn’t mean it could just be ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top