johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Feb 17, 2017 9:38:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 9:48:12 GMT
You aren't going to hell. Nobody on this forum is going to hell. Limbo possibly.... My first thought was 'What? We have unchristened infant members?' My second thought was, 'Ah, Benji of course.' Infantile disorder isn't just a condition of youth though is it?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 9:48:29 GMT
Not really, actually. People are increasingly rejecting your "OMG! Islamophobia!" hysteria in the face of the Berlin Christmas Market, the Nice Bastille Day Parade, the Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, etc (so many more in the Third World). We really couldn't give a damn for your protectiveness over the most radicalised section of the population but your indifference to the blown-up... no, I can live with it. I guess I will go to hell. you seem to be mistaking CatholicLeft for George Galloway. This is not a mistake anyone has made before. Consider yourself a pioneer. You aren't going to hell. Nobody on this forum is going to hell. Limbo possibly.... Maybe if a few more people were Pioneers, some of the comments would be less, well, just less...... |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 9:50:32 GMT
Why Hustings, why not Shureham or Worthing? Let other misspelt Sussex towns see their candidates! You mean Wurthing... Is the upper part of the town called Wurthing Heights? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 9:54:43 GMT
you seem to be mistaking CatholicLeft for George Galloway. This is not a mistake anyone has made before. Consider yourself a pioneer. You aren't going to hell. Nobody on this forum is going to hell. Limbo possibly.... Maybe if a few more people were Pioneers, some of the comments would be less, well, just less...... So true.... |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 17, 2017 10:42:29 GMT
What, you think Theresa despises the working classes then? Is that just a stock opinion that you apply to anyone who is leader of the Conservative party, or do you have any evidence to support this? No, just Theresa. I think she holds pretty much everyone in contempt. That reminds me of the joke on one of the old sketch shows Cue Thatcher impersonator "My name is Margaret Thatcher. Some people say that I am a snob. But that is simply not true. I talk down to people of every class" |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 17, 2017 10:55:15 GMT
Oh why not?!! I think Snell and Nuttall are fucking up enough, so I am changing my vote back from UKIP to Conservative. I feel lucky. It has been a lucky two years. Had the Conservative party not ceded first dibs to UKIP they would quite possibly have been in with a chance of a good second ( I don't think there is enough base for them to do better - unlike in Copeland) but since they did it is probably too late to do anything about it now. I find the Conservative approach utterly baffling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 11:01:01 GMT
I don't.
They're focusing on Copeland and not trying here. I imagine the Conservatives don't actually want Labour to lose Stoke, because it increases the chances of their greatest asset - Corbyn - going.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 17, 2017 11:22:18 GMT
Is the upper part of the town called Wurthing Heights? Where they dug up a brontesaurus I believe. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 17, 2017 11:25:01 GMT
Tony Blair along to save Nuttall?? Who would have thought it......
(save for those who have long believed our once admired former PM became a vain delusional narcissist some time ago, of course)
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 17, 2017 11:27:07 GMT
What, you think Theresa despises the working classes then? Is that just a stock opinion that you apply to anyone who is leader of the Conservative party, or do you have any evidence to support this? No, just Theresa. I think she holds pretty much everyone in contempt. Yes....Gush...Gush...Wow.....That's why we love her! Ohhh! Suit you Sir! Ohhh! thrash me again. It was the public school wot dun it. Your party just like molesting female staffers I know. We are more complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 17, 2017 11:40:04 GMT
I don't. They're focusing on Copeland and not trying here. I imagine the Conservatives don't actually want Labour to lose Stoke, because it increases the chances of their greatest asset - Corbyn - going. 1. Surely the Conservative party has the resources to support two byelections at the same time? 2. Downplaying Stoke allows UKIP to be identified as the main challenger and surely increases the chance of Labour losing by the anti-Labour vote coalescing around a single challenger? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Feb 17, 2017 12:32:16 GMT
Tony Blair along to save Nuttall?? Who would have thought it...... ( save for those who have long believed our once admired former PM became a vain delusional narcissist some time ago, of course) Stop embarrassing yourself. This is exactly the kind of attitude that paved the way for Corbyn and sustains him in office, whether or not you actually voted for him. Do you really think that Tony Blair is the biggest threat to Labour's electoral prospects right now? Have you been living at the North Pole in an igloo without access to the news media or telecommunications for the entirety of the last decade? What is it with Labour people - including many like you, who in theory ought to know better - that you can dissect the actions of the Labour government from 10-15 years ago with 20:20 hindsight, but you can't see what's right in front of your nose, right now? Our problem is not just the cultists and crazies who froth away behind their keyboards. It's people who, on the face of it, are fairly sensible but are still fighting the battles of the past and refusing to see the elephant in the room. Well, you need to understand he is a very unpopular person (sure he was very popular when 20 years ago, but not anymore). People like you and David, when you defend him (or Blair himself, when he does apparitions like today) are actually hurting Labour Party, because people think "Well, Labour is full of people like him" or worse "Labour is full of Corbynites and Blairites", both which are totally not popular right now. Yes, Labour would probably be better off without Corbyn (through, like in everything, how it's done will be important), but Blair is clearly not an asset either. People want neither of them. Labour need to go past them. And it's obvious people react to Blair right now, because he suddently appear in the campaign. Corbyn isn't reacted as much, him being there is not new. Someone reacting right now to Corbyn being Labour leader would have quite a delayed reaction. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 17, 2017 12:45:58 GMT
No, just Theresa. I think she holds pretty much everyone in contempt. Yes....Gush...Gush...Wow.....That's why we love her! Ohhh! Suit you Sir! Ohhh! thrash me again. It was the public school wot dun it. Your party just like molesting female staffers I know. We are more complicated. Er, ok. Well carry on... |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 17, 2017 12:46:12 GMT
All of Blair's recent interventions in political matters have been embarrassing, cack-handed and above all totally counter productive.
It is a tragedy that somebody who once had such an assured and instinctive grasp of the public mood has now been reduced to their present state.
He should have retired from public life forever and in shame once Chilcot had been published, anyway. Let him spend the rest of his life doing good works unobtrusively in penance, a la Profumo. But no - he likes glitz, glamour and the company of amoral plutocrats too much.
(and if a poster from Canada can get it so totally spot on, it makes me all the sadder that some in my own party don't)
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 17, 2017 12:58:15 GMT
Recent polls have shown him about as "popular" as Corbyn. That is surely all the evidence anybody needs.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 17, 2017 13:57:10 GMT
It's also to do with perception: everyone knows Stoke is a Labour seat and no one expects the Conservatives to win. Copeland is the sort of seat you can use to construct a narrative about 'no no go areas' or whatever. If you said 'it's in Cumbria' to the average well informed lay voter, they may very think it's a rural seat and believe that by winning it, the Conservatives have shown they're back to winning ways. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Feb 17, 2017 13:59:45 GMT
The best way for Labour to address the Blair problem is to argue strongly in favour of him being charged and handed over for trial at The Hague.Many people outside the Labour Party - indeed beyond the centre left - would rejoice at such an outcome. There remains a strong sense that he has not received his just desserts. As someone who took nearly three years to read the entire transcripts of the 1945/46 Nuremberg trials, I have longed believed that he - with Bush - to have been more guilty of the indictment related to Planning for War than any of the Nazis charged or convicted there - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.
I am not referring to the other indictments concerning Crimes against Humanity - Treatment of Foreign workers - Treatment of Prisoners of War.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 17, 2017 14:08:04 GMT
Is Planning For War a specific offence?
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Feb 17, 2017 15:19:36 GMT
Is Planning For War a specific offence? Nuremberg said 'yes' - given a clear intention to implement such plans. Forcing Hans Blix and his team to abandon the search for WMD provides pretty clear evidence that Blair & Bush were hell bent on their war of aggression. |
|
