The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

Paradigm shift is with the young, not Corbyn. The worrying attitude that Russell Brand expressed is one facet, the move to the left of Labour i another. Hobes' attitude is the one I speak of. Beware complacency and ignorance.

If he has caused that shift in the young then like I say he will improve the electoral performance.

I fear that he has not enacted an Obama style paradigm shift or awakening, and rather will turn more away from voting Labour.

But we shall see.

Not him. I repeat, not him. He is a symptom, not a cause.

[thebish]

maybe you could be clearer about what particular Corbyn-"means" you are claiming I have validated or embraced? Then I might have a chance at understanding what on earth you are on about...

So you've not been defending to the hilt what he's been doing over the last 100 odd pages or so? You have in fact been complaining about what he's done to the Labour party?

that's a no then... which is a shame - because it seems that you are dead sure that i have done summat real bad... but i can't grasp what on earth it is!

anyway... HITLER!!

What about Hitler?

ends and means, spotty...

I was kind of hoping that the "means" of mentioning Hitler would further my "end" - inspiring someone to invoke Godwin's Law and thus close the thread!

actually - it was your roping-in of Stalin that inspired me!

[Prufrock]

What is clear, however, is that MPs owe their duty to their constituents (in whatever sense) rather than to party members, affiliates or supporters. Corbyn's supporters praise him for "standing up for what he believes in" (a phrase which when uttered is is usually code for "believes in what the speaker believes in") but then criticise his MPs for standing up for what *they* believe in.

well.. with a slight modification... on the subject we are talking about - or at least *were* talking about - being a member of the shadow cabinet - I don't think members have been sacked for disagreeing with corbyn or having a different opinion or standing up for what they believe in - Benn did that VERY VERY clearly and publically - as did other cabinet members and they are still in place...

that's quite a different matter than being in the shadow cabinet and using lots of your time to plot and piss and whine at the legitimacy of the leader - which (i think) is the reason for the sackings from the shadow cabinet... i may be wrong - but if i am right - that's absolutely fair enough in my book!

I don't think I have heard Corbyn "criticise his MPs for standing up for what they believe in..." have you? (disagreeing with them is not the same thing!)

Now that I don't disagree with in principle. (There were plenty of rumours however that Benn and the Eagles were about to be Shadow shuffled off and only threats of mass resignations stopped that. That (I think) is the reason they didn't go - I may be wrong - but if I am right, that makes Corbyn a bell-end).

I didn't say Corbyn criticised them, I said Corbyn supporters have done. For many of them "principled" means "agrees with me".

[thebish]

^ I wouldn't get too excited about what random political supporters think - or about pre-shuffle rumours...

judge a man by his own actions and words - not by his twitter-fans' twatterings, that's my motto for today!

[Prufrock]

Also, you've mentioned several times, on several topics, that Corbyn gets slagged off for doing something, then slagged off for changing his mind and doing something else, implying that this somehow involves double standards and a contradiction. Well no, it isn't double standards to say that doing A rather than B would be stupid, and then when A goes tits up and he moves on to B, point out that we told you A was stupid.

actually - I don't think I have said that Corbyn has changed his mind and done summat else.. have I?

certainly not on the cabinet reshuffle issue. I think you might be making that up or simply mistaken.

I didn't say you said/agreed he changed his mind, but that you said he gets slagged off for changing his mind (ie the people slagging him off think he has changed his mind, even if you don't agree that he actually has). That doesn't mean you personally accept he has changed it.

Like here:

are you REALLY arguing this?? Corbyn allowed shadow cabinet members a free-go over the bombing of Syria... and - I repeat - Benn is still in the cabinet!

there might be LOTS to quibble over with Corbyn - but insisting that he's particularly prone to "my way is the only way" in any unusual way isn't one of them! fact is - he was monumentally and almost universally ridiculed and pilloried for trying as hard as he did to work with a shadow cabinet of such hugely varied opinion - now he's made a couple of very small tweaks - he's pilloried for NOT allowing people who openly dissent from his leadership in his cabinet?

It's not inconsistent to say "he's an idiot for having a shadow cabinet of such hugely varied opinion because that won't work" and then when he makes changes the speaker things are significant (although you might maintain are small tweaks) say, "ha, he's had to make significant changes because that broad cabinet didn't work, the idiotic boob".

[Prufrock]

^ I wouldn't get too excited about what random political supporters think - or about pre-shuffle rumours...

judge a man by his own actions and words - not by his twitter-fans' twatterings, that's my motto for today!

What, the man who thinks Osama Bin Laden's death was, and I [perhaps somewhat disingenuously] quote, "a tragedy" ?!

[thebish]

Also, you've mentioned several times, on several topics, that Corbyn gets slagged off for doing something, then slagged off for changing his mind and doing something else, implying that this somehow involves double standards and a contradiction. Well no, it isn't double standards to say that doing A rather than B would be stupid, and then when A goes tits up and he moves on to B, point out that we told you A was stupid.

actually - I don't think I have said that Corbyn has changed his mind and done summat else.. have I?

certainly not on the cabinet reshuffle issue. I think you might be making that up or simply mistaken.

I didn't say you said/agreed he changed his mind, but that you said he gets slagged off for changing his mind (ie the people slagging him off think he has changed his mind, even if you don't agree that he actually has). That doesn't mean you personally accept he has changed it.

Like here:

are you REALLY arguing this?? Corbyn allowed shadow cabinet members a free-go over the bombing of Syria... and - I repeat - Benn is still in the cabinet!

there might be LOTS to quibble over with Corbyn - but insisting that he's particularly prone to "my way is the only way" in any unusual way isn't one of them! fact is - he was monumentally and almost universally ridiculed and pilloried for trying as hard as he did to work with a shadow cabinet of such hugely varied opinion - now he's made a couple of very small tweaks - he's pilloried for NOT allowing people who openly dissent from his leadership in his cabinet?

It's not inconsistent to say "he's an idiot for having a shadow cabinet of such hugely varied opinion because that won't work" and then when he makes changes the speaker things are significant (although you might maintain are small tweaks) say, "ha, he's had to make significant changes because that broad cabinet didn't work, the idiotic boob".

nahh - not buying it.... nowt's really changed - he is still experimenting with a diverse range of opinions in his shadow cabinet... a couple have been sacked for disloyalty (not having different opinions)

and I don't think you are characterising the pilloryings properly..

1) boo - you shouldn't have a cabinet where some people disagree
2) boo - you shouldn't have a cabinet of people that all agree with you

I think that absolutely IS inconsistent pillorying...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

maybe you could be clearer about what particular Corbyn-"means" you are claiming I have validated or embraced? Then I might have a chance at understanding what on earth you are on about...

So you've not been defending to the hilt what he's been doing over the last 100 odd pages or so? You have in fact been complaining about what he's done to the Labour party?

that's a no then... which is a shame - because it seems that you are dead sure that i have done summat real bad... but i can't grasp what on earth it is!

anyway... HITLER!!

What about Hitler?

ends and means, spotty...

I was kind of hoping that the "means" of mentioning Hitler would further my "end" - inspiring someone to invoke Godwin's Law and thus close the thread!

actually - it was your roping-in of Stalin that inspired me!

Ahhhh. Completely passed me by. I believe that is the third time I've missed the Invocation. The first time I was ignorant of it. The second time it was too subtle (the Hoss dropped it in somewhere), and now this one when I 'd forgotten all about Godwin.

So yes HITLER

[thebish]

^ I wouldn't get too excited about what random political supporters think - or about pre-shuffle rumours...

judge a man by his own actions and words - not by his twitter-fans' twatterings, that's my motto for today!

What, the man who thinks Osama Bin Laden's death was, and I [perhaps somewhat disingenuously] quote, "a tragedy" ?!

that would be judging him by your own disingenuous and pretty stupid interpretation of his words - not by his words (which when listened as a whole piece were the very same opinion as I am sure i have heard you express more than once... better to bring a man to trial than summarily assassinate him...)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I quite like the idea of summarily executing some people... Hitler f'rinstance should have been.

[thebish]

^ too late now... you blew it!

[Bruce Rioja]

I find it difficult to believe that the massive amount of votes that Corbyn received were due in large part to the childish c*nts who can't wrap their heads around democracy and democratic process.

Who's claimed that and where?

[Lord Kangana]

I'm struggling to see where I made that claim.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm struggling to see where I made that claim.

Which claim?

[thebish]

[Hoboh]

[Prufrock]

Also, you've mentioned several times, on several topics, that Corbyn gets slagged off for doing something, then slagged off for changing his mind and doing something else, implying that this somehow involves double standards and a contradiction. Well no, it isn't double standards to say that doing A rather than B would be stupid, and then when A goes tits up and he moves on to B, point out that we told you A was stupid.

actually - I don't think I have said that Corbyn has changed his mind and done summat else.. have I?

certainly not on the cabinet reshuffle issue. I think you might be making that up or simply mistaken.

I didn't say you said/agreed he changed his mind, but that you said he gets slagged off for changing his mind (ie the people slagging him off think he has changed his mind, even if you don't agree that he actually has). That doesn't mean you personally accept he has changed it.

Like here:

are you REALLY arguing this?? Corbyn allowed shadow cabinet members a free-go over the bombing of Syria... and - I repeat - Benn is still in the cabinet!

there might be LOTS to quibble over with Corbyn - but insisting that he's particularly prone to "my way is the only way" in any unusual way isn't one of them! fact is - he was monumentally and almost universally ridiculed and pilloried for trying as hard as he did to work with a shadow cabinet of such hugely varied opinion - now he's made a couple of very small tweaks - he's pilloried for NOT allowing people who openly dissent from his leadership in his cabinet?

It's not inconsistent to say "he's an idiot for having a shadow cabinet of such hugely varied opinion because that won't work" and then when he makes changes the speaker things are significant (although you might maintain are small tweaks) say, "ha, he's had to make significant changes because that broad cabinet didn't work, the idiotic boob".

nahh - not buying it.... nowt's really changed - he is still experimenting with a diverse range of opinions in his shadow cabinet... a couple have been sacked for disloyalty (not having different opinions)

and I don't think you are characterising the pilloryings properly..

1) boo - you shouldn't have a cabinet where some people disagree
2) boo - you shouldn't have a cabinet of people that all agree with you

I think that absolutely IS inconsistent pillorying...

It's only inconsistent if it's the same people doing both. I'm really not sure it is.

In fact, I think some people think you shouldn't have a cabinet where people disagree, and some, other people, think you shouldn't have one where they all agree. The pilloryings from both sides are just what's it's like to be a politician. Damned if you do..

[Prufrock]

^ I wouldn't get too excited about what random political supporters think - or about pre-shuffle rumours...

judge a man by his own actions and words - not by his twitter-fans' twatterings, that's my motto for today!

What, the man who thinks Osama Bin Laden's death was, and I [perhaps somewhat disingenuously] quote, "a tragedy" ?!

that would be judging him by your own disingenuous and pretty stupid interpretation of his words - not by his words (which when listened as a whole piece were the very same opinion as I am sure i have heard you express more than once... better to bring a man to trial than summarily assassinate him...)

1) it's only ever possible to judge somebody's words by one's interpretation of those words.

2) I agree it's better to bring people to trial rather than execute them; however, Bin Laden's death was a tragedy by no meaning of that word I know, and it was politically moronic to describe it as such.

That said I agree the context is important and he was in no way professing support for Bin Laden.Cameron's opportunism was as bankrupt as it was predictable.

[bobo the clown]

Haaa. It gets worse. Let's leave NATO.

Jeremy decided during his leadership campaign to put aside hus long held conviction that the UK should leave NATO. His co-opted man on the party's Defence policy review, his chum Ken Livingstone has returned to that view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -Nato.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

John Woodcock's suggestion that he thinks the left are actively seeking to appear ridiculous so to drive out 'mainstream' members" is interesting.

[thebish]

^ I wouldn't get too excited about what random political supporters think - or about pre-shuffle rumours...

judge a man by his own actions and words - not by his twitter-fans' twatterings, that's my motto for today!

What, the man who thinks Osama Bin Laden's death was, and I [perhaps somewhat disingenuously] quote, "a tragedy" ?!

that would be judging him by your own disingenuous and pretty stupid interpretation of his words - not by his words (which when listened as a whole piece were the very same opinion as I am sure i have heard you express more than once... better to bring a man to trial than summarily assassinate him...)

1) it's only ever possible to judge somebody's words by one's interpretation of those words.

2) I agree it's better to bring people to trial rather than execute them; however, Bin Laden's death was a tragedy by no meaning of that word I know, and it was politically moronic to describe it as such.

That said I agree the context is important and he was in no way professing support for Bin Laden.Cameron's opportunism was as bankrupt as it was predictable.

and likewise, yours in repeating it...