JC speaks

[ManOfSussex]

Crikey the right are in a panic about JC aren't they. Must be doing something right.

I find it intriguing that Conservative Brexit voters who went against what their leader, the nice Mr Cameron, said and voted 'leave' are partly, possibly wholly, responsible for the subsequent chain of events and the political situation we're now in and the distinct possibility, though no more than a possibility, that Corbyn may win the next election whenever it comes. They're certainly in a panic. Had remain won, there'd have been no general election this year and it's perfectly possible today's emboldened Corbyn wouldn't have even been around speaking in Brighton earlier this afternoon and if he was nobody would be watching like they evidently have today on here. Even Fraser Nelson of The Spectator concludes that the next election is Corbyn's to lose in Saturday's edition:

[tweet]913031061134807040[/tweet]

 

[Bold Seagull]

Are you on a wind up ? Corbyn is a glorified rabble rouser. He appeals to extremists like the Marxists, communists, socialists and Islamists , trade union yobs and of course the silly naive students who have already been brainwashed by their lefty lecturers.

Corbyn has no grasp of economics and spends most of his time cosying up to terrorist groups, he has No appeal to anyone with even 2 brain cells in their head.

Have I Got News For You, odd one out round....Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Islamists.

It's a tough one, over to you Paul Merton.

 

[Buzzer]

You might infer that, or that I don't really know, or I'm lacking attention to all things politics. Luckily, I have you, [MENTION=1197]Bozz[/MENTION]er, and @Titantic to keep me updated with all things Labour.

So let's get this right. You announce your arrival triumphantly on this thread declaring that the right are running scared from Corbyn but just a few posts later avoid answering a tricky question by claiming to be ignorant about politics. I guess that's par for the course with you.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So let's get this right. You announce your arrival triumphantly on this thread declaring that the right are running scared from Corbyn but just a few posts later avoid answering a tricky question by claiming to be ignorant about politics. I guess that's par for the course with you.

Getting personal so early? It's not even 6pm!

 

[Live by the sea]

You might infer that, or that I don't really know, or I'm lacking attention to all things politics. Luckily, I have you, [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION], and [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] to keep me updated with all things Labour.

Perhaps if you ignorant of the facts Bold Seagull, best to keep quiet methinks.

 

[DumLum]

Get rid of Abbott and be prepared to use nuclear deterrent. He would get in in my opinion.

 

[Insel affe]

Something very wrong and cringe worthy about people singing a political leaders name, the last time this happened he led us into a war and the fallout has come home to roost in home grown terrorism and thousands of lost lives.

Be careful what you wish for folks, so far he is all sound bytes and appealing to the clueless without thought or regard for the long term.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

It doesn't really matter who's in power when our tiny island is wiped off the face of the earth.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Bold Seagull]

so far he is all sound bytes and appealing to the clueless without thought or regard for the long term.

This sentence could so easily be describing David Davis and Brexit.

 

[Buzzer]

Getting personal so early? It's not even 6pm!

It's not personal other than to comment on your debating style. I asked you a perfectly reasonable question and you chose to give a sarcastic reply. It's not the first time, hence my comments. I think in the circumstances my observation is quite fair.

 

[Live by the sea]

Something very wrong and cringe worthy about people singing a political leaders name, the last time this happened he led us into a war and the fallout has come home to roost in home grown terrorism and thousands of lost lives.

Be careful what you wish for folks, so far he is all sound bytes and appealing to the clueless without thought or regard for the long term.

Agree . Appeals to the type of people that contribute very little to our country. I.e. The workshy ..

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's not personal other than to comment on your debating style. I asked you a perfectly reasonable question and you chose to give a sarcastic reply. It's not the first time, hence my comments. I think in the circumstances my observation is quite fair.

You'll also have enough self awareness that entering into a debate with you, with all due respect, requires a fair amount of commitment on the part of the person deciding to be your adversary. Right now, that is not going to happen. If being flippant and keeping things humorous as a way of telling you I'm not going down that road is sarcastic, so be it.

 

[Buzzer]

You'll also have enough self awareness that entering into a debate with you, with all due respect, requires a fair amount of commitment on the part of the person deciding to be your adversary. Right now, that is not going to happen. If being flippant and keeping things humorous as a way of telling you I'm not going down that road is sarcastic, so be it.

Fair enough. So don't get all stroppy in future if I reply with a sarcastic comment to one of yours, especially if it was in response to a genuinely reasonable question from me. Have a good evening, matey.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Maybe im a bit naive but isnt 'having a party' really quite stupid?

I voted Labour because this time round, their manifesto appealed to me more. Im not a labour 'supporter' and they are not 'my party'.

Last time I voted tory.

I just cannot fathom how people have alliegences. Doesnt that defeat the whole point? Surely you should start neutral each time and let a party convince you to vote for them, otherwise you are voting for the same party no matter what they do?

And then, the same people who have 'a party' argue between each other despite neither person ever being willing to change 'their party'. Odd.

I think it's a generational thing. Im of the understanding that you're roughly my age? (I'm 30). Most of my friends of around the same age as me have pretty much voted for a different party at each election- some have MAINLY voted for one party but have switched allegiance a few times as well- myself included. I'm not sure I know anyone my age who has voted for the same party every time they've voted. Whereas my parents generation seem to "pick a side" and it would take something fairly drastic to change that- i.e. a huge shift in policy (i.e.. old school Labour voters leaving when it became "new labour"). And then my grandparents generation basically never seem to switch at all.

I'm aware that this is a HUGE generalisation but I think it's a fairly consistent trend

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Get rid of Abbott and be prepared to use nuclear deterrent. He would get in in my opinion.

And leave the Falklands alone. They don't want talks with Argentina.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

More typical Corbynista behaviour...

https://order-order.com/2017/09/27/canary-and-evolve-politics-embarrass-themselves-again/

Tough day at The Canary: the Corbynista site’s latest Laura Kuenssberg bashing piece has provoked widespread ridicule. The site claimed: “We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She’s listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference.” Except Laura K wasn’t listed as a speaker, she was merely ‘invited’ – and indeed she had declined the offer. Rather than put a call in to the BBC to check, the Canary published and let their misleading story go viral. Their comrades at Evolve Politics went with it as well. Amusingly, dozens of complaints have been received by the Impress regulator…

Some journalists are speaking at Tory conference though. Owen Jones, for example. He’s not only invited but is a confirmed speaker at two events. We need to talk about Owen Jones. He’s listed as a speaker at the Tory Party Conference…

#thereallynastyparty

https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/913056057739620352

[tweet]913056057739620352[/tweet]

 

[seagulls4ever]

other question is can they keep hold of all those they gained? will the students of Canterbury for example be taken in by the bribe next time (especially as they already backtracked on it)?

Just so you know, deliberately misrepresenting JC/Labour's position only serves to further motivate those who want to see JC/Labour in power to fight harder. As JC has said, smear tactics actually benefited his campaign.

Or maybe you have just been misinformed, by others, including the media, who have misrepresented the position on tuition fees.

I assume you are talking about the false allegation that Labour backtracked on wiping student debt completely for all new, existing and past students. This is completely incorrect. Labour never had a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt.

Indeed, here's a post I made BEFORE the GE (2nd June) in response to someone who at the time was misrepresenting Labour's position:

So writing off debt from 10 years ago will help your grandchildrens future? Cos that is what Jezza is promising. Feel free to regret at your leisure.

Incorrect, he isn't writing off debt for those who already owe tuition fees.

Your original post on tuition fees was factually incorrect as well. It isn't a quarter of the budget, which is obviously a great deal more substantial than 4x10bn. It'a 700bn+

It's interesting how we are told individual debt is bad and should be avoided, yet we're willing to start people off in life with 50k of debt, that they start paying massive amounts of interest on from their first year at university.

Further, the government has to pay for it anyway. They've just fiddled the books so it's owed to the Student Loans Company so it appears our deficit is less than it actually is.

 

[ozzygull]

Still only 3rd choice for best PM, trailing 6 points behind 'Don't Know'

Hmmm

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-jeremy-corbyn-is-now-britains-preferred-prime-minister-2017-6

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Just so you know, deliberately misrepresenting JC/Labour's position only serves to further motivate those who want to see JC/Labour in power to fight harder. As JC has said, smear tactics actually benefited his campaign.

Or maybe you have just been misinformed, by others, including the media, who have misrepresented the position on tuition fees.

I assume you are talking about the false allegation that Labour backtracked on wiping student debt completely for all new, existing and past students. This is completely incorrect. Labour never had a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt.

Indeed, here's a post I made BEFORE the GE (2nd June) in response to someone who at the time was misrepresenting Labour's position:

Really? There is Youtube evidence of a Labour candidate talking to schoolchildren about it, but if you want something a bit more up to date.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nnell-party-conference-brighton-a7965956.html

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Just so you know, deliberately misrepresenting JC/Labour's position only serves to further motivate those who want to see JC/Labour in power to fight harder. As JC has said, smear tactics actually benefited his campaign.

Or maybe you have just been misinformed, by others, including the media, who have misrepresented the position on tuition fees.

I assume you are talking about the false allegation that Labour backtracked on wiping student debt completely for all new, existing and past students. This is completely incorrect. Labour never had a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt.

Indeed, here's a post I made BEFORE the GE (2nd June) in response to someone who at the time was misrepresenting Labour's position:

Perhaps he just listened to the Shadow Justice secretary



Telling fibs to children and students ... *tut*

Or maybe to another shadow minister ..

Media smears or Labour ineptitude/fibbing?