Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:23 am**

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:22 am Yeah, yeah , yeah... we get all that. Boris is bad. (I get a sense that Kier is bidding his time for now, but once the moment is right will make political capital out of any mishandling by the Tories.)

But, aside from not strutting on a beach in his speedos, what is it that gives anyone confidence that a Jezza-led government would have cracked the secret recipe for the perfect long-term strategy for dealing with the global pandemic?

What Jezza may have done/not done couldn't be more irrelevant. Why bring that up? Boris and co. are in charge and they ARE f*cking it up. That's what needs to be addressed.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:33 am**

It's called whatabouttery. Standard defence from those on the Right.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:39 am**

It’s really not complicated. Tell us what they should be doi differently if you want healthy debate

Criticising the govt =

Ranting about every little action by the govt without giving your own solution =

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:00 pm**

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:39 am It’s really not complicated. Tell us what they should be doi differently if you want healthy debate

Criticising the govt =

Ranting about every little action by the govt without giving your own solution =

Suggest you look back at the various threads that have clearly illustrated what the government has done wrong. It's all been explained so many times that I find it hard to believe you're not fully aware. As to what can be done better, unfortunately there's not much that can be done to remedy this governments screw ups (slow start, wrong herd immunity path followed, late lockdown, late to order ventilators, late to order PPE) unless you have a time machine they can borrow? What they need to do is actually meet their promises re increased testing, sufficient PPE available (and not blame NHS staff for "using it" too much), and produce an exit strategy ("it might confuse the public" - bunkum).

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:02 pm**

BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:00 pm
Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:39 am It’s really not complicated. Tell us what they should be doi differently if you want healthy debate

Criticising the govt =

Ranting about every little action by the govt without giving your own solution =
Suggest you look back at the various threads that have clearly illustrated what the government has done wrong. It's all been explained so many times that I find it hard to believe you're not fully aware. As to what can be done better, unfortunately there's not much that can be done to remedy this governments screw ups (slow start, wrong herd immunity path followed, late lockdown, late to order ventilators, late to order PPE) unless you have a time machine they can borrow? What they need to do is actually meet their promises re increased testing, sufficient PPE available (and not blame NHS staff for "using it" too much), and produce an exit strategy ("it might confuse the public" - bunkum).

Excellent succinct summation.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:39 pm**

BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:00 pm
Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:39 am It’s really not complicated. Tell us what they should be doi differently if you want healthy debate

Criticising the govt =

Ranting about every little action by the govt without giving your own solution =
Suggest you look back at the various threads that have clearly illustrated what the government has done wrong. It's all been explained so many times that I find it hard to believe you're not fully aware. As to what can be done better, unfortunately there's not much that can be done to remedy this governments screw ups (slow start, wrong herd immunity path followed, late lockdown, late to order ventilators, late to order PPE) unless you have a time machine they can borrow? What they need to do is actually meet their promises re increased testing, sufficient PPE available (and not blame NHS staff for "using it" too much), and produce an exit strategy ("it might confuse the public" - bunkum).

You can’t explain logic and the truth to donkeys fella.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:49 pm**

BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:23 am
Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:22 am Yeah, yeah , yeah... we get all that. Boris is bad. (I get a sense that Kier is bidding his time for now, but once the moment is right will make political capital out of any mishandling by the Tories.)

But, aside from not strutting on a beach in his speedos, what is it that gives anyone confidence that a Jezza-led government would have cracked the secret recipe for the perfect long-term strategy for dealing with the global pandemic?
What Jezza may have done/not done couldn't be more irrelevant. Why bring that up? Boris and co. are in charge and they ARE f*cking it up. That's what needs to be addressed.

I agree. It should be irrelevant. But it appears not to be. Now sit back while I unleash my awesome multi-quote technique and slap you around the face with some serious old skool boarding, son.

Over the last couple of weeks there have been a number of posts which, while principally aimed at criticising the government (fair enough), seem to suggest the author believes that Corbyn-era Labour would have done so much better. I really cannot be bothered to highlight each and every one, and normally I wouldn't bother, but I'm bored and you deserve what's coming.

Take this little exchange between conkles and the other one as an example:

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:41 am
Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:34 am
RedO wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 pm

Not even funny at the moment, way too soon.

Sir Kier can’t be allowed to sweep this under the carpet.
You mean in the same way Corbyn and McDonnell swept anything right of Marxism under the carpet?
Seriously mate.

We were a couple of thousand votes away from a Labour government in 2017. If it wasn’t for these c*nts, we would have got there.

Imagine how different things would be right now if that were the case. These c*nts have blood on their hands.

The takeaway point here is that, we are invited to consider that a government led by Jeremy Corbyn would have cracked the secret recipe for the perfect long-term strategy for dealing with the global pandemic. And (this is the best bit), that by denying us this wonderful experience, those within the Labour party who conspired against him therefore "have blood on their hands."

Therefore it was perfectly reasonable to ask where the confidence behind the assertion came from.

There are other posts scattered around, such as this one from [*checks notes], oh, you:

BoniO wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:11 pm... I'd take Dianne Abbott as Home Secretary instead of Patel any day of the week.

Personally I have no idea if Dianne Abbott would make a better or worse Home Secretary than Priti Patel. But if someone does believe she would, then I feel it is only fair to ask them to explain why they are so confident of that fact. I've tried to scout for an answer on here, but so far the best I can find is this peach:

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:21 pm I could not indeed imagine Diane Abbott demonstrating as less empathy as Priti Patel.

I agree with this, BTW. After all, Dianne has had plenty of practice in displaying such emotions so she should be good at it by now. But, in a time of crisis, I'm not after empathy or sympathy, I just want people to use their best judgement to make the best decision possible and be effective in delivering the best outcomes.

For the hard of thinking, I'm not suggesting for one moment that Priti Patel is a good Home Secretary (I don't think she is). But if someone else claims the person X would be better then at least be able to articulate why.

There are loads more examples out there. But if you need to see them to understand the point being made then you'll just have to look for them yourself.

That's why I bring it up. Well, that and the fact that this is the Labour Watch thread, in which we generally discuss all things Labour.

*Drops the mic, sits back in chair, and opens a giant packet of f*cking biscuits.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:55 pm**

if Labour were any good at running things
they would surely have won the election and now be in charge.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:02 pm**

Thanks for that Dunners but I think you've wasted a lot of time here. I can't answer for what anyone else may have said, as featured in your quotes (two without the full context in which they were written).

I can answer for my comment re Dianne Abbott though. To add the missing context, this was on a thread ripping Patel apart for her failure to apologise to the NHS for the shortage of PPE, her total lack of empathy and her immense arrogance. I stand by the comment that I'd prefer Abbott to be in her post as I can't imagine anyone doing a worse job than Patel. Nowhere do I say that a Labour government would absolutely be doing a better job than this appalling Tory government. It can't be proved either way, although, given the scale of the Tory f*ck ups I do have an opinion on that.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:04 pm**

That’s half a fair point, greyhound. Based on the GE campaign you have to question their recent organisational competence.

But it’s only half fair, because GE’s are decided on a mixture of political programmes, personalities, calculated least-worst options and the self-interest of (many) voters. I’d say bureaucratic managerial abilities come way down the pecking order.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:07 pm**

greyhound wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:55 pm if Labour were any good at running things
they would surely have won the election and now be in charge.

The in-fighting in the Labour party is well documented. However their potential to navigate through a crisis is untested whereas the Tories have shown absolutely that they are inept, dishonest and frankly have put thousands (possibly ten's of) of people unnecessarily at risk.

What a Labour government may or may not have done is 100% irrelevant here. It's the Tories in power and they are useless.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:12 pm**

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:49 pm
BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:23 am
Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:22 am Yeah, yeah , yeah... we get all that. Boris is bad. (I get a sense that Kier is bidding his time for now, but once the moment is right will make political capital out of any mishandling by the Tories.)

But, aside from not strutting on a beach in his speedos, what is it that gives anyone confidence that a Jezza-led government would have cracked the secret recipe for the perfect long-term strategy for dealing with the global pandemic?
What Jezza may have done/not done couldn't be more irrelevant. Why bring that up? Boris and co. are in charge and they ARE f*cking it up. That's what needs to be addressed.
I agree. It should be irrelevant. But it appears not to be. Now sit back while I unleash my awesome multi-quote technique and slap you around the face with some serious old skool boarding, son.

Over the last couple of weeks there have been a number of posts which, while principally aimed at criticising the government (fair enough), seem to suggest the author believes that Corbyn-era Labour would have done so much better. I really cannot be bothered to highlight each and every one, and normally I wouldn't bother, but I'm bored and you deserve what's coming.

Take this little exchange between conkles and the other one as an example:

RedO wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 9:41 am
Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:34 am

You mean in the same way Corbyn and McDonnell swept anything right of Marxism under the carpet?
Seriously mate.

We were a couple of thousand votes away from a Labour government in 2017. If it wasn’t for these c*nts, we would have got there.

Imagine how different things would be right now if that were the case. These c*nts have blood on their hands.
The takeaway point here is that, we are invited to consider that a government led by Jeremy Corbyn would have cracked the secret recipe for the perfect long-term strategy for dealing with the global pandemic. And (this is the best bit), that by denying us this wonderful experience, those within the Labour party who conspired against him therefore "have blood on their hands."

Therefore it was perfectly reasonable to ask where the confidence behind the assertion came from.

There are other posts scattered around, such as this one from [*checks notes], oh, you:

BoniO wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:11 pm... I'd take Dianne Abbott as Home Secretary instead of Patel any day of the week.
Personally I have no idea if Dianne Abbott would make a better or worse Home Secretary than Priti Patel. But if someone does believe she would, then I feel it is only fair to ask them to explain why they are so confident of that fact. I've tried to scout for an answer on here, but so far the best I can find is this peach:

NuneatonO's wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:21 pm I could not indeed imagine Diane Abbott demonstrating as less empathy as Priti Patel.
I agree with this, BTW. After all, Dianne has had plenty of practice in displaying such emotions so she should be good at it by now. But, in a time of crisis, I'm not after empathy or sympathy, I just want people to use their best judgement to make the best decision possible and be effective in delivering the best outcomes.

For the hard of thinking, I'm not suggesting for one moment that Priti Patel is a good Home Secretary (I don't think she is). But if someone else claims the person X would be better then at least be able to articulate why.

There are loads more examples out there. But if you need to see them to understand the point being made then you'll just have to look for them yourself.

That's why I bring it up. Well, that and the fact that this is the Labour Watch thread, in which we generally discuss all things Labour.

*Drops the mic, sits back in chair, and opens a giant packet of f*cking biscuits.

're point 1. My understanding of Labour having won in 2017 was that there would have been massive investment in the NHS putting it in a better place to withstand a global pandemic.

The point about whether JC and his crew would have handled the pandemic differently is actually a political question.

Boris ignored the scientists regarding the trace, test & isolate they put forward and also ignored the need for a lockdown for too long. Only adopting it because events made it inevitable.

It was putting people before profit. JC doesn't believe in that and would be more likely to take the scientists advice.

I'm not going to bother with your other points.

Can I ask when you became a right winger?

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:21 pm**

1.49pm

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:36 pm**

Dunnem is absolutely bossing this board nowadays

11.5 stuff

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:59 pm**

Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:36 pm Dunnem is absolutely bossing this board nowadays

11.5 stuff

Do you have proof for this ?

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 4:28 pm**

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:59 pm
Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:36 pm Dunnem is absolutely bossing this board nowadays

11.5 stuff
Do you have proof for this ?

Get yourself over to the Band Off Final thread Tufty. He's Boardin' at 11.5 and above on that.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 5:10 pm**

I was. But Lovejoy turned out to be a killjoy.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 6:29 pm**

Oh Dunnem....

Maxy has covered off my response. The first point is that the NHS would have had more investment from 2017 so been in a healthier place to cope with this. The second is that Jezza would taken a different approach of protecting the people rather than the economy.

But it’s simpler things as well. The tories have tried to protect big businesses with their complicated furlough scheme - a socialist Labour government would have been able to adopt a much simpler UBI approach.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 6:30 pm**

I don’t think Abbott would have been anywhere near the front bench either, so you can relax there too.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:56 pm**

I thought we were talking about if they'd won in 2019....

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:05 pm**

No, we were a couple of thousand votes away from a Labour government in 2017. That’s what was being discussed.

I think it was a few more than that in 2019...

Posted: **Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:33 am**

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:56 pm I thought we were talking about if they'd won in 2019....

Dunners. I'm wondering if your time would be better spent designing a "Biscuit Off".

I know you're a big biscuit fan. Don't insult me denying it.

I'm just throwing ideas into the mix here but we could have early rounds of say a local derby like "Orange Club v Mint Club", "Wagon Wheel v The Cocunut Marshmallow", " Ginger Nut v Ginger Snap".

Hell I don't know. But get on it. You could Board beyond 11.5 on this. FFS you might even break the Board Meter.

Get on it.

Posted: **Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:01 pm**

slacker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 11:53 am This is Bears-sh*t-In-The-Woods-News, really. Although it’s important to note the report confirms there was a small amount of anti-semitism amongst the more deranged Palestine/Israel obsessives, I think anybody who was paying attention knew this marginal issue was being cynically weaponised by the centrist factions within the Labour hierarchy, as well as a useful stick to smear Corbyn’s crew within the MSM. And it worked.

A week which has seen an unredacted report leaked and shared via various racists, multiple lawsuits opened up, factional war fought in public view, whistleblowers exposed and Jews being used as pawns yet again.

Posted: **Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:58 pm**

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 10:05 pm No, we were a couple of thousand votes away from a Labour government in 2017. That’s what was being discussed.

I think it was a few more than that in 2019...

I love the way the left spin the facts ....Over 750,000 more votes for the Tories and a 55 seat margin between the parties in 2017 and there were 3.7 million votes between The Tories and Labour in 2019 and just the 164 seats difference.......a few more

Posted: **Thu Apr 16, 2020 6:16 pm**

Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch