|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:Politics in the uk and us sure looks like just the media counting down to the point where corporations are invited to form a government while slinging poo poo at any alternative. Its been going on for years now, Im not suprised thats all young adults know e: That's your history snipe
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
Paxman posted:He sounds to me like a Play School presenter explaining that Big Ted *chortle* can sometimes be a bit naughty. This is why the round window is not the correct window, boys and girls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Emily Thornberry was on Newsnight talking about an elderly woman who's been told her home help is going to come at noon instead of in the morning due to cuts, and is now terrified that she won't be able to get up and have breakfast in the morning. Her message was that everyone should unite and focus on fighting the Tories but it occurred to me that she is helping destroy the only organisation capable of removing the Tories from power. The only possible justification for this is if you honest to God believe that the Labour Party under a different leader would actually be in favour of cutting social care for elderly vulnerable people, which I guess is why Corbyn's supporters are so keen to argue that most Labour MPs are kind of evil. I don't believe that though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Paxman posted:He sounds to me like a Play School presenter explaining that Big Ted *chortle* can sometimes be a bit naughty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Emily Thornberry was on Newsnight talking about an elderly woman who's been told her home help is going to come at noon instead of in the morning due to cuts, and is now terrified that she won't be able to get up and have breakfast in the morning. Ed Balls + Miliband had the position of austerity being 'too far, too fast' rather than actively harmful, counterproductive and bad and fought the 2015 election on further austerity, Harriet Harmon refused to consider opposing the welfare bill when she was acting leader and then Jeremy won. Post-Brown, pre-Corbyn the Labour Party has been absolutely fine with cutting services so yes given the evidence that's a completely understandable belief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Paxman posted:The only possible justification for this is if you honest to God believe that the Labour Party under a different leader would actually be in favour of cutting social care for elderly vulnerable people, Wasn't that their policy position when they were pro austerity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
 Goodnight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:25
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
namesake posted:Ed Balls + Miliband had the position of austerity being 'too far, too fast' rather than actively harmful, counterproductive and bad and fought the 2015 election on further austerity, Harriet Harmon refused to consider opposing the welfare bill when she was acting leader and then Jeremy won. Post-Brown, pre-Corbyn the Labour Party has been absolutely fine with cutting services so yes given the evidence that's a completely understandable belief. They fought the 2015 election on a policy of running a surplus on day to day spending and investing in infrastructure, which is almost identical to the current policy of balancing the books on day to day spending. Technically the difference could be £1. McDonnell has adopted their plans for a national investment bank and series of regional banks. Harman never said she refused to consider opposing the welfare bill, she said Labour should abstain at second reading and attempt to amend it before deciding what to don't third reading depending on whether the amendments were successful. It was lousy politics but it doesn't mean she wanted to cut home help. Hasn't something strange happened when the best defence of Jeremy Corbyn is to insist the party he's been a member of all these years and the MPs he volunteered to lead are largely terrible people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Emily Thornberry was on Newsnight talking about an elderly woman who's been told her home help is going to come at noon instead of in the morning due to cuts, and is now terrified that she won't be able to get up and have breakfast in the morning. As people have already said Labour under Ed did not oppose Tory welfare cuts. They only accused them of being 'too fast', whatever that means. And the argument that Thornberry is somehow destroying the only opposition to the Tories is some straight-up anti-democratic bullshit. She was rightfully elected to her position, she was chosen for her shadow role by a democratically elected leader and she has every god-drat right to put across her own beliefs and policies. The idea that because Labour are behind in the polls all the wishes and principles of the membership should be unilaterally stomped on by a handful of power brokers and replaced by ones that might be more palatable to the public is an absolute anathema to democracy. Parties should be driven by their membership, not by those at the top in collusion with a handful of wealthy donors to present the public with a narrow array of pre-approved options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wasn't that their policy position when they were pro austerity? They talked about capping the cost of social care but his was a cap on the cost you'd have to pay yourself. The pre-Corbyn policy doesn't seem terrible to me. Labour 2015 manifesto posted:Care is at the heart of Labour’s values. No-one should fear old
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Oo 5000 home care workers for the entire country. That'll help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Paxman posted:They talked about capping the cost of social care but his was a cap on the cost you'd have to pay yourself. Heavy on rhetoric, light on substance. Guaranteed 48 hour GP appointments is a load of bollocks and a classic example of an empty promise. It takes ten years to train a GP, giving people that guarantee was point-blank impossible. The Cancer Treatment Fund is something that sounds good to the layman but anyone with knowledge of how these things works recognises is a bad idea. Ending time-limited visits in practice just means goal-limited visits instead. I.E. let's see who can get the patient dressed and fed in under five minutes! Ooh, an extra 0.07 care workers per 1000 people! lol TTIP. Don't get me wrong, it has it's good points, but it is not a good or realistic health policy and it doesn't mention funding at all aside to promise 'investment'. Allow me to write a better health policy: we will increase health spending to the OECD average percentage of GDP. Boom, done. VV If a 'lousy' candidate wins a democratic election and you think they should immediately step down and all future elections should be cancelled, you're an anti-democratic rear end in a top hat. That's all I'm saying. VV jabby fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Oo 5000 home care workers for the entire country. That'll help. Particularly when those same workers would be outsourced to the lowest bidder who would in turn pay them minimum wage or lower and then be 'shocked and disheartened' when the CQC describes their businesses as little better than abattoirs. Miliband's Labour were perfectly happy with widespread privatisation as long as no-one complained about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
jabby posted:As people have already said Labour under Ed did not oppose Tory welfare cuts. They only accused them of being 'too fast', whatever that means. The fact that she was appointed by a democratically elected leader, which nobody disputes, doesn't make any difference to the fact that she (or really Corbyn, who she seems to be close to) is helping destroy Labour. It's perfectly possible to have a free and fair election which a lousy candidate wins. I'm sure some Labour members do care about winning elections, which is the only real way Labour can help people after all. Back during the leadership elections there was a lot of talk about Corbyn moving the Overton window left, winning back support for Labour in Scotland and getting people who never voted before to support Labour, so his supporters seemed to care about that. Also, I actually think Labour has a responsibility to the country in general, particularly the most vulnerable people on it, not just to its members.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
jabby posted:Heavy on rhetoric, light on substance. I totally accept your judgment on this but I still suspect it passes the bar of "significantly better than what's happening under the Tories". Or not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
"Not quite as bad as the tories" has never been a sustainable or compelling platform for a democratic socialist party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Paxman posted:I totally accept your judgment on this but I still suspect it passes the bar of "significantly better than what's happening under the Tories". Or not? When you fall back on the argument of 'at least it's not as bad as the Tories' you vindicate everyone who claims that was New Labour's only selling point, and you can't pretend to be surprised by those who want more from a party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Not quite as bad as the tories" has never been a sustainable or compelling platform for a democratic socialist party. Not quite what I said:) But if the failings of the rest of the Labour Party are being used to justify handing the Tories a load of Labour seats on a plate, isn't the burden of proof the other way? Doesn't the non-Corbym wing of the party have to be pretty fuckin terrible if their failings are meant to justify what's happening now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Their failings are the reason people flocked to any other alternative when it presented itself. If they want to avoid that they need to provide, frankly to have already provided as by this point I think it's far too late, a credible alternative, they failed to do that in two general elections and two leadership elections since then. And all evidence suggests they have not learned from that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Not quite what I said:) But if the failings of the rest of the Labour Party are being used to justify handing the Tories a load of Labour seats on a plate, isn't the burden of proof the other way? Doesn't the non-Corbym wing of the party have to be pretty fuckin terrible if their failings are meant to justify what's happening now? All they have to do is beat Corbyn in a leadership election. They failed, and they desperately tried to avoid facing him again because they knew they would fail. They've had every opportunity to present an alternative, to try and convince the membership to follow them and even to recruit their own supporters from the general public. They put no effort into any of this, instead choosing to create a poisonous atmosphere and damage the party at every turn. Say what you like about Corbyn's leadership ability, the sheer level of spite and hatred spewed out by some of the PLP has been an absolute disgrace. They chose to attack him personally and to try every dirty trick in the book to oust him and remove power from the membership. They chose this path and they can drat well take the blame for it. The idea that we should reward them by putting them back in control of everything is laughable. jabby fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
So what's Corbyn's position on care for the elderly? How come he's lost so many older voters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Tory bastards I assume.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So what's Corbyn's position on care for the elderly? How come he's lost so many older voters? He wants to nationalise underperforming private care homes. Give care for the elderly a more solid floor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So what's Corbyn's position on care for the elderly? How come he's lost so many older voters? At the moment I don't think he has one, or at least not one more specific than 'fund social care properly'. But then we are back to the Catch-22 that people don't think Labour has changed but it isn't that wise to lay out detailed policy positions three years from a general election. ^^ That's a good policy though. ^^
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
That's about care homes. That doesn't actually help the elderly person mentioned who is worried about her home help. It's not clear to me whether 'failed' care homes refer to the ones who were insolvent, or the ones who had too few staff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
If he's still planning to end zero hour contracts that would force social care providers to pay their carers properly and likely improve their quality of care, given that a shitload of social care is done by unqualified people who aren't paid anything for it and who are required to do as few hours as possible with no job security. Social care as it stands is almost entirely useless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Ending zero hour contracts was on the 2015 manifesto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
And I believe that about as much as I do anything else in that manifesto, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
I'll note that if government action stopped all financially failing care homes from going away, that would save... 600 beds in 2015-2016. Corbyn's pledge, assuming the 5000 workers one was dropped, would probably actually do less than the 2015 one. (EDIT: Of course Brexit is what will utterly nuke the care sector, whatever Corbyn or anyone else says, but never mind that, lol)OwlFancier posted:And I believe that about as much as I do anything else in that manifesto, frankly. And that's that, I guess. When Ed says it, it's a lie, when Jeremy says it, it's the truth, and Jeremy will never betray you, unless he really has to because he'd get eviscerated by the right wing media Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Labour in 2015 spent a long time arguing for actual tory poo poo like austerity. I have absolutely no reason to believe that the party, left to its own devices, would give a poo poo about anything that matters to me, especially not when it's full of posh cunts like Umunna.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Nowadays Labour spends a long time arguing for actual ukip poo poo like brexit. In between continuing to support austerity about as much as they did before. (Quick reminder that austerity was *way* more popular in 2015 than brexit is) http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2015/07/09/public-opinion-graphs-austerity/ 
Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
More revisionism. Now Ed Miliband was actually good. You shower of bastards. You utter contemptuous cunts. I'll fight you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
 Martin McGuinness
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:
wasn't it mentioned ITT that he hadn't been looking well recently?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:wasn't it mentioned ITT that he hadn't been looking well recently? Yeah its been known he's been dying for a few weeks now
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'll note that if government action stopped all financially failing care homes from going away, that would save... 600 beds in 2015-2016. Corbyn's pledge, assuming the 5000 workers one was dropped, would probably actually do less than the 2015 one. (EDIT: Of course Brexit is what will utterly nuke the care sector, whatever Corbyn or anyone else says, but never mind that, lol) Why would you believe the 2015 manifesto when it's full of things that would actually be impossible to deliver, like GP appointments for all within 48 hours? If you're willing to make promises like that I fail to see why anyone should trust you. Also where are you getting your data that less than 10 care homes in the country are in financial trouble? Because I'm not sure it's correct. jabby fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Doubt the exchange rate is going to get any better, so probably wise. WTF? Into the stupidest currency in the world who might not be around in a few years time? Move your money into USD if you want a safe bet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
it's still true that the public feels that Labour in government was too profligate. In the sense of being too generous to the undeserving, to emphasise. not in bailing out bankers. that's why they switched to the Tories this is very unfair but very difficult to defend against without implicitly conceding the perennial, Mail-fed faith in endemic welfare fraud. if you say: there wasn't endemic welfare fraud, you sound clueless. if you say: we'll do more to fight welfare fraud, you concede past carelessness and now also the party left hate your guts. I don't know how this ends. maybe these programmes only survive by chucking the right to privacy of welfare claimants out of the window, so that those who live in terror that someone, somewhere might be living high off the public dime can go satiate their paranoia. which is something that is rather easier to contemplate whilst in opposition, I'll admit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Roubles are probably best in terms of being a currency in a country you could live in which I believe was Mains first point. How much in savings are we talking though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
ffs don't ask a comedy internet forum for advice on currency speculation
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 09:54
|
|
