Forum | But what about Corbyn eh? by Dubtractor

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

But what about Corbyn eh? 21:53 - Dec 12 with 20530 views

Remarkable that today (on here and elsewhere in the interwebz), given the omni shambles that is the conservative party, there a still lots of people who's best response seems to be more or less "but Corbyn?".

A bit desperate isn't it?

	I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun. I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
Poll:	How confident are you of promotion now? Predicted final position...

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:53 - Dec 13 with 4992 views

Oxford_Blue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:17 - Dec 13 by caught-in-limbo

Every day on this site, this conversation plays out:

"Our Government, tut! eh?
"yeah, but Corbyn!"
"yeah, useless!"
"strong government needs a strong opposition"
"yeah, it's all Corbyn's fault"
"yeah, useless, don't want May or Boris. Can't vote Corbyn. Liberals are dead. Think I'll vote Green."
"Or Corservative."
"yeah, or Conservative, not Corbyn though"
"Or not vote..."
"Not vote? Are you mental? Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Franco. Mussolini, Mugabe, Pol Pot."
"Yeah, almost as bad as voting Corbyn"
"Conservative then... just not May."
"Yeah... can't go wrong with Conservative!"
"Winston Churchill, innit."
"Exactly! GREAT Britain!"
"Yeah"

Change some of the names to Evans, MM, Hurst and PL and it’s the same

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:57 - Dec 13 with 4973 views

caught-in-limbo

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:39 - Dec 13 by giant_stow
"you're all wrong" "boo" "I know better and here's some obscure link to prove it" "boo, gerroff"

you're so much better when you post as lowhouse

	#toxic
Poll:	BREXIT - Hard, soft, phantom ...

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:59 - Dec 13 with 4981 views

giant_stow

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:57 - Dec 13 by caught-in-limbo
you're so much better when you post as lowhouse

You vicious queen!

That one hurt.

Edit: not to put LOwhouse down - he/she is one of my joint favorites.

[Post edited 13 Dec 2018 11:00]

	Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Poll:	A clasmate tells your son their going to beat him up in the playground after sch

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:38 - Dec 13 with 4935 views

Herbivore

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:52 - Dec 13 by Oxford_Blue

I’ve never used the word “hard evidence.” That’s yours.

I’ve only ever asked for evidence or reasons for some posters to back up claims.

Your request is obtuse because we don’t have a Labour government and there is no record to attack. What we can do is to criticise the policies based on reason and argument, which is what political commentators are paid to do. I’ve explained via these views why I think Corbyn would be a disaster. So far you haven’t engaged with any of the issues.

Now you tell me why those views - expounded by liberal or leftist papers - are wrong.

So no actual evidence then? Oh dear. The other day you were demanding bank statements of Brexiteers as proof they voted leave for their own again, now you think you mere political commentary is evidence? It's interesting that Brexiteers dismiss forecasts and commentary when they suggest Brexit will be a disaster for the economy, whilst jumping on any commentary or forecast that says something negative about Labour as though it is the gospel truth. No consistency. No rigour.

[Post edited 13 Dec 2018 11:42]

Poll:	Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog:	Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:40 - Dec 13 with 4925 views

Oxford_Blue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:38 - Dec 13 by Herbivore

[Post edited 13 Dec 2018 11:42]

You’re not getting it are you?

In case events have happened so there is evidence.

In another they haven’t, so we need to base our views on opinions with reasons.

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:42 - Dec 13 with 4916 views

Herbivore

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:40 - Dec 13 by Oxford_Blue
You’re not getting it are you? In case events have happened so there is evidence. In another they haven’t, so we need to base our views on opinions with reasons.

I'm getting it just fine. No consistency. No rigour.

Poll:	Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog:	Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:32 - Dec 13 with 4882 views

Oxford_Blue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:42 - Dec 13 by Herbivore
I'm getting it just fine. No consistency. No rigour.

So you tell me with rigour why the views in the Guardian and Independent are wrong. Bet you can’t.

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:50 - Dec 13 with 4852 views

Gromheort

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:32 - Dec 13 by Oxford_Blue
So you tell me with rigour why the views in the Guardian and Independent are wrong. Bet you can’t.

I'd say that any publication employing John Rentoul is going to be suspect in the credibility stakes! Just a personal opinion mind you.

Better of course to construct your own argument, rather than just saying "I read it from some geezer in some rag"

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:50 - Dec 13 with 4843 views

GlasgowBlue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:42 - Dec 13 by Herbivore
I'm getting it just fine. No consistency. No rigour.

Just your usual hypocrisy.

	Iron Lion Zion
Poll:	Our best central defensive partnership?
Blog:	[Blog] For the Sake of My Football Club, Please Go

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:54 - Dec 13 with 4836 views

footers

Has anyone mentioned the government-funded trolls who attack Corbyn online too?

People often accuse us on the left of being tinfoil hat wearers (look at Wilson in '76!) but this evidence of the government using taxpayers' money to discredit the lead of the opposition is absolutely shameful and undemocratic.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/foreign-office-investigates-rep

	footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Poll:	Battle of the breakfast potato... who wins?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:58 - Dec 13 with 4817 views

Herbivore

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:32 - Dec 13 by Oxford_Blue
So you tell me with rigour why the views in the Guardian and Independent are wrong. Bet you can’t.

They're views, not evidence.

Poll:	Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog:	Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:59 - Dec 13 with 4811 views

lowhouseblue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:54 - Dec 13 by footers
Has anyone mentioned the government-funded trolls who attack Corbyn online too? People often accuse us on the left of being tinfoil hat wearers (look at Wilson in '76!) but this evidence of the government using taxpayers' money to discredit the lead of the opposition is absolutely shameful and undemocratic. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/foreign-office-investigates-rep

although that's not quite what the article says. it actually says that an organisation which receives some public money to do one thing was also, separately, re-tweeting bad stuff about Corbyn, and the government is angry about it and has demanded enquiries. that isn't quite the same as "the government using taxpayers' money to discredit the lead of the opposition". sorry to be a pedant.

And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show

-1

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:03 - Dec 13 with 4801 views

footers

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:59 - Dec 13 by lowhouseblue
although that's not quite what the article says. it actually says that an organisation which receives some public money to do one thing was also, separately, re-tweeting bad stuff about Corbyn, and the government is angry about it and has demanded enquiries. that isn't quite the same as "the government using taxpayers' money to discredit the lead of the opposition". sorry to be a pedant.

No problem with your pedantry. OK so how about "an organisation that is directly employed by the government used taxpayers' money to discredit the leader of the opposition"?

Whether the tweets were separate or not, they have still attempted to smear Corbyn as being pro-Kremlin, much like those who feared Wilson was a communist.

	footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Poll:	Battle of the breakfast potato... who wins?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:03 - Dec 13 with 4791 views

GlasgowBlue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:54 - Dec 13 by footers
Has anyone mentioned the government-funded trolls who attack Corbyn online too? People often accuse us on the left of being tinfoil hat wearers (look at Wilson in '76!) but this evidence of the government using taxpayers' money to discredit the lead of the opposition is absolutely shameful and undemocratic. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/foreign-office-investigates-rep

Where in your article does it say that the "government [used] taxpayers' money to discredit the lead of the opposition"?

	Iron Lion Zion
Poll:	Our best central defensive partnership?
Blog:	[Blog] For the Sake of My Football Club, Please Go

-1

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:05 - Dec 13 with 4791 views

footers

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:03 - Dec 13 by GlasgowBlue
Where in your article does it say that the "government [used] taxpayers' money to discredit the lead of the opposition"?

Hopefully I've clarified that in response to lowhouse.

	footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Poll:	Battle of the breakfast potato... who wins?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:05 - Dec 13 with 4790 views

lowhouseblue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:03 - Dec 13 by footers
No problem with your pedantry. OK so how about "an organisation that is directly employed by the government used taxpayers' money to discredit the leader of the opposition"? Whether the tweets were separate or not, they have still attempted to smear Corbyn as being pro-Kremlin, much like those who feared Wilson was a communist.

have you evidence that it "used taxpayers' money to discredit the leader of the opposition"? cos again that's not what the article says. i suspect re-tweeting doesn't really require funding. there's no evidence that the money the government paid caused, led to, or otherwise enabled the re-tweets (which in any case the government has strongly objected to).

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:07 - Dec 13 with 4780 views

footers

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:05 - Dec 13 by lowhouseblue
have you evidence that it "used taxpayers' money to discredit the leader of the opposition"? cos again that's not what the article says. i suspect re-tweeting doesn't really require funding. there's no evidence that the money the government paid caused, led to, or otherwise enabled the re-tweets (which in any case the government has strongly objected to).

"the government provided funding to a Scottish-based company... which also spread unfavourable views about Jeremy Corbyn."

"The Institute for Statecraft, based in Fife, received hundreds of thousands of pounds in Foreign Office money."

Are you suggesting that the company works for the FCO for free?

I want to be clear in that I'm not suggesting a conspiracy by the government, they have taken the appropriate action and hopefully their funding is removed.

	footers KC - Prosecution Barrister - Friend to all
Poll:	Battle of the breakfast potato... who wins?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 14:00 - Dec 13 with 4731 views

No9

Advice to labour (or any of the opposition parties) at this moment in time would be to lay low & do nothing.

But what about Corbyn eh? on 14:02 - Dec 13 with 4729 views

lowhouseblue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 13:07 - Dec 13 by footers

"which also". correlation not proving causation and all of that.

But what about Corbyn eh? on 14:04 - Dec 13 with 4723 views

No9

But what about Corbyn eh? on 14:02 - Dec 13 by lowhouseblue
"which also". correlation not proving causation and all of that.

Have you done any reseach on the subject?
I thnk not

But what about Corbyn eh? on 21:32 - Dec 13 with 4658 views

Oxford_Blue

But what about Corbyn eh? on 12:58 - Dec 13 by Herbivore
They're views, not evidence.

Yes. Well done. So tell me why they are wrong.

You don’t seem able to engage in an actual discussion.

But what about Corbyn eh? on 00:40 - Dec 14 with 4623 views

XYZ

Thanks for the trailer for the TWTD Xmas special comedy soap guys - I'm definitely tuning in for the full show.

No spoilers, please, but does Oxford Blue get outed as a devotee of the Church of St Bully?

But what about Corbyn eh? on 01:20 - Dec 14 with 4612 views

Freddies_Ears

But what about Corbyn eh? on 22:18 - Dec 12 by RamRob
These days I can't see any party winning an overall majority, a GE now would only ensure a hung parliament and more uncertainty. Best result would probably be a coalition but only if two or more parties can swallow their pride to avoid a minority government which would be a disaster imo.

Most countries have a parliament that actually reflects votes. That generally leads to coalitions. Coalitions are pretty good, in that they avoid extreme politics, and bring consensus amongst those who differ. Coalition partners have to compromise in key policy areas, but educated electorates understand that.

UK is different.

But what about Corbyn eh? on 10:47 - Dec 15 with 4522 views

Gromheort

But what about Corbyn eh? on 01:20 - Dec 14 by Freddies_Ears
Most countries have a parliament that actually reflects votes. That generally leads to coalitions. Coalitions are pretty good, in that they avoid extreme politics, and bring consensus amongst those who differ. Coalition partners have to compromise in key policy areas, but educated electorates understand that. UK is different.

Generally speaking I am a big fan of eliminating the limitations associated with a 2 party system. Given most folk are anti-Tory, it's also gut wrenching that they have an inflated position that allows them to destroy the welfare state, the NHS and any notion of equality of opportunity.

Despite that, we should acknowledge the risks associated with proportional representation. First, coalitions aren't necessarily a good thing. As they scramble for an alliance, for example, that can actually increase the power of the bigoted far right. Second, whilst we suffer from broken manifesto promises, you're guaranteed to have no say as policy outcomes will reflect bargaining behind closed doors.Third, you can still get inflated importance which doesn't reflect electoral success. Imagine, for example, the uselessness involved with the Liberals permanently in government...

But what about Corbyn eh? on 11:17 - Dec 15 with 4504 views

No9

But what about Corbyn eh? on 22:01 - Dec 12 by m14_blue
It would be useful to have a better Labour leader at the moment though wouldn’t it?

Not really, the fixed parliament law makes it difficult to challenge any sitting government.
The sitting governemtn in this case is split X 3 but you can bet your life that IF it became a question of losing power they would stick like sh!t to a blanket.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread