Page 66 of 264
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 8:07 pm
by Real Al
Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 10:36 am
Why bother? When keeping him on is doing wonders for The Partie's poll numbers.
Keir is playing a blinder here, so refreshing to have a Leadership that understanding how to be successful electorally
Jesus, has he won a general election? I just haven't been paying attention.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 8:19 pm
by Currywurst and Chips
Real Al wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 8:07 pm
Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 10:36 am
Why bother? When keeping him on is doing wonders for The Partie's poll numbers.
Keir is playing a blinder here, so refreshing to have a Leadership that understanding how to be successful electorally
Jesus, has he won a general election? I just haven't been paying attention.
No, he was unfairly smeared by the Roman MSM
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 12:02 am
by Dohnut
Real Al wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 8:07 pm
Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 10:36 am
Why bother? When keeping him on is doing wonders for The Partie's poll numbers.
Keir is playing a blinder here, so refreshing to have a Leadership that understanding how to be successful electorally
Jesus, has he won a general election? I just haven't been paying attention.
How to be, not has been. Damn sight more chance than Corbyn for sure. I reckon he will go some way towards denting the huge majority Johnson got when he kicked Corbyns arse. Labour have leadership. The tide is turning. Everything is in his favour other than defeating the loony far left Like Momentum. Once they are history and he sorts out anti semitism, which he will, Labour will be back. Corbyn failed to destroy Labour.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 12:04 am
by Dohnut
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 3:18 pm
Would you like to tell me how the guidelines for over 70's differered from the general guidance and how he broke those guidelines?
I'll give you a clue, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about and there was no specific guidance, you massive tw*t.
I’m so glad it’s been pointed out that you were wrong. Massive tw*t? Maybe you’re looking in a mirror. Egg on face time,
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 12:34 am
by Mikero
Momentum will never go away completely they will just re-emerge under another names as Militant did. Factionalism always exists on the fringes of politics, generally fighting amongst itself to get to listened to. Left or Right its just the same.
Mikero
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:22 am
by E10EU
Yet Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 when they tried to be more like the Tories. Remember the anti immigrant mugs?
In 2017 Labour with Corbyn's manifesto succeeded in wiping out the Tories majority - and that was DESPITE the media and many Labour MPs actively undermining the leader.
Now in 2020 we have a Labour party leader who really is just another Blairite, politics as usual. All to keep the status quo. He even appointed as General Secretary the man who was in that role under Blair. All this at a time when we needed Labour to passionately oppose the shenanigans of the Johnson Tory government! In this week the Tory sycophants of the Daily Mail have been even more critical of Johnson than Starmer has!
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:00 am
by HeyO
E10EU wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:22 am
Yet Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 when they tried to be more like the Tories. Remember the anti immigrant mugs?
In 2017 Labour with Corbyn's manifesto succeeded in wiping out the Tories majority - and that was DESPITE the media and many Labour MPs actively undermining the leader.
Now in 2020 we have a Labour party leader who really is just another Blairite, politics as usual. All to keep the status quo. He even appointed as General Secretary the man who was in that role under Blair. All this at a time when we needed Labour to passionately oppose the shenanigans of the Johnson Tory government! In this week the Tory sycophants of the Daily Mail have been even more critical of Johnson than Starmer has!
Dazed and confused.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 9:58 am
by Mick McQuaid
Nice Username wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:01 pm
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 3:18 pm
Would you like to tell me how the guidelines for over 70's differered from the general guidance and how he broke those guidelines?
I'll give you a clue, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about and there was no specific guidance, you massive tw*t.
Actually, you're completely wrong:
Corbyn was regularly going to the House of Commons despite there being a clear work from home option for him. So there's a blatant breach of guideline 3. Guessing he probably took public transport to get there too.
Thanks for putting up the exact thing I was referring to. Everyone was told to follow social distancing, and to follow the guidelines stringently, telling one group to follow something more stringently is clearly nonsense. As I said there was no specific guidance for over 70's that was different to anyone else
They then came up with the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable otherwise known as the shielding group where there was specific guidance.
Obviously this caused confusion between clinically vulnerable and extremely clinically vulnerable and lots of people wrongly thought all over 70's belonged in the second group.
Again, find me something that says there were any different guidelines.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:26 am
by Dohnut
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:58 am
Nice Username wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:01 pm
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 3:18 pm
Would you like to tell me how the guidelines for over 70's differered from the general guidance and how he broke those guidelines?
I'll give you a clue, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about and there was no specific guidance, you massive tw*t.
Actually, you're completely wrong:
Corbyn was regularly going to the House of Commons despite there being a clear work from home option for him. So there's a blatant breach of guideline 3. Guessing he probably took public transport to get there too.
Thanks for putting up the exact thing I was referring to. Everyone was told to follow social distancing, and to follow the guidelines stringently, telling one group to follow something more stringently is clearly nonsense. As I said there was no specific guidance for over 70's that was different to anyone else
They then came up with the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable otherwise known as the shielding group where there was specific guidance.
Obviously this caused confusion between clinically vulnerable and extremely clinically vulnerable and lots of people wrongly thought all over 70's belonged in the second group.
Again, find me something that says there were any different guidelines.
Corbyn came under the over 70s and he was clear he would not obey the guidelines, he said so. Your starting to sound like Cummings who also used the rules to weasel out of breaking them.
Corbyn, Cummings, Farage and others, who have been sacked, not to mention 20,000 fines issued by the police. People breaking the rules. And did you see the photograph of the press outside Cummings house clambering for a photo of him, no social distancing there as the Press jostled for the money shot. Now that is hypocritical.
The truth is what Cummings et al have done is no worse than thousands are doing every day and we all should know better. Don’t make it right but makes a great story for the media to jump on. He should have resigned, he hasn’t. It’s not the first time aides have screwed up and not been sacked. Even Corbyn got slated for that.
What gets me is not Cummings, who should go, but the hypocrisy of those digging at him whilst doing exactly the same. Hypocrisy is everywhere.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:28 am
by HeyO
Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:26 am
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:58 am
Nice Username wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:01 pm
Actually, you're completely wrong:
Corbyn was regularly going to the House of Commons despite there being a clear work from home option for him. So there's a blatant breach of guideline 3. Guessing he probably took public transport to get there too.
Thanks for putting up the exact thing I was referring to. Everyone was told to follow social distancing, and to follow the guidelines stringently, telling one group to follow something more stringently is clearly nonsense. As I said there was no specific guidance for over 70's that was different to anyone else
They then came up with the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable otherwise known as the shielding group where there was specific guidance.
Obviously this caused confusion between clinically vulnerable and extremely clinically vulnerable and lots of people wrongly thought all over 70's belonged in the second group.
Again, find me something that says there were any different guidelines.
Corbyn came under the over 70s and he was clear he would not obey the guidelines, he said so. Your starting to sound like Cummings who also used the rules to weasel out of breaking them.
Corbyn, Cummings, Farage and others, who have been sacked, not to mention 20,000 fines issued by the police. People breaking the rules. And did you see the photograph of the press outside Cummings house clambering for a photo of him, no social distancing there as the Press jostled for the money shot. Now that is hypocritical.
The truth is what Cummings et al have done is no worse than thousands are doing every day and we all should know better. Don’t make it right but makes a great story for the media to jump on. He should have resigned, he hasn’t. It’s not the first time aides have screwed up and not been sacked. Even Corbyn got slated for that.
What gets me is not Cummings, who should go, but the hypocrisy of those digging at him whilst doing exactly the same. Hypocrisy is everywhere.
You’re justifying lying.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:38 am
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:26 am
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:58 am
Nice Username wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:01 pm
Actually, you're completely wrong:
Corbyn was regularly going to the House of Commons despite there being a clear work from home option for him. So there's a blatant breach of guideline 3. Guessing he probably took public transport to get there too.
Thanks for putting up the exact thing I was referring to. Everyone was told to follow social distancing, and to follow the guidelines stringently, telling one group to follow something more stringently is clearly nonsense. As I said there was no specific guidance for over 70's that was different to anyone else
They then came up with the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable otherwise known as the shielding group where there was specific guidance.
Obviously this caused confusion between clinically vulnerable and extremely clinically vulnerable and lots of people wrongly thought all over 70's belonged in the second group.
Again, find me something that says there were any different guidelines.
Corbyn came under the over 70s and he was clear he would not obey the guidelines, he said so. Your starting to sound like Cummings who also used the rules to weasel out of breaking them.
Corbyn, Cummings, Farage and others, who have been sacked, not to mention 20,000 fines issued by the police. People breaking the rules. And did you see the photograph of the press outside Cummings house clambering for a photo of him, no social distancing there as the Press jostled for the money shot. Now that is hypocritical.
The truth is what Cummings et al have done is no worse than thousands are doing every day and we all should know better. Don’t make it right but makes a great story for the media to jump on. He should have resigned, he hasn’t. It’s not the first time aides have screwed up and not been sacked. Even Corbyn got slated for that.
What gets me is not Cummings, who should go, but the hypocrisy of those digging at him whilst doing exactly the same. Hypocrisy is everywhere.
Have you not read what mick just wrote?
There is no breach from Corbyn here. The over 70s didn’t and do not have to lock themselves away, although there was lots of confusion around it because of the governments lack of clarity on the issue.
Staggering that the same old trolls are still laying into the bloke. Staggering.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:42 am
by Dohnut
HeyO wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:28 am
Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:26 am
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:58 am
Thanks for putting up the exact thing I was referring to. Everyone was told to follow social distancing, and to follow the guidelines stringently, telling one group to follow something more stringently is clearly nonsense. As I said there was no specific guidance for over 70's that was different to anyone else
They then came up with the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable otherwise known as the shielding group where there was specific guidance.
Obviously this caused confusion between clinically vulnerable and extremely clinically vulnerable and lots of people wrongly thought all over 70's belonged in the second group.
Again, find me something that says there were any different guidelines.
Corbyn came under the over 70s and he was clear he would not obey the guidelines, he said so. Your starting to sound like Cummings who also used the rules to weasel out of breaking them.
Corbyn, Cummings, Farage and others, who have been sacked, not to mention 20,000 fines issued by the police. People breaking the rules. And did you see the photograph of the press outside Cummings house clambering for a photo of him, no social distancing there as the Press jostled for the money shot. Now that is hypocritical.
The truth is what Cummings et al have done is no worse than thousands are doing every day and we all should know better. Don’t make it right but makes a great story for the media to jump on. He should have resigned, he hasn’t. It’s not the first time aides have screwed up and not been sacked. Even Corbyn got slated for that.
What gets me is not Cummings, who should go, but the hypocrisy of those digging at him whilst doing exactly the same. Hypocrisy is everywhere.
You’re justifying lying.
Not at all. Cummings lied in my opinion, given his position he should resign or be sacked. That’s been my position from day one. But, like lawyers, he is using the text to excuse his actions, weasel out. Not very noble, But part of everyday life. We all know that.
If everybody who told a lie got sacked, it would run into millions. That’s not justifying just being realistic. We all know that too.
What I am pointing out that what he has done is no worse than many others but his position and the fact he is disliked makes him a great target. A focal point for people to vent their anger, and the media love it. This weeks top story. You know, the same media who were criticised for disliking Corbyn costing him the election. So the Press now have another target. It’s what gives them oxygen.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:44 am
by Mikero
I think you are confusing hypocrisy with delusion, hypocrisy is a pretence in a belief you don't really hold, delusion is when you believe that everyone else is as hypocritical as you are.
Mikero
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
by Admin
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 10:52 am
by Dohnut
RedO wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:38 am
Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:26 am
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:58 am
Thanks for putting up the exact thing I was referring to. Everyone was told to follow social distancing, and to follow the guidelines stringently, telling one group to follow something more stringently is clearly nonsense. As I said there was no specific guidance for over 70's that was different to anyone else
They then came up with the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable otherwise known as the shielding group where there was specific guidance.
Obviously this caused confusion between clinically vulnerable and extremely clinically vulnerable and lots of people wrongly thought all over 70's belonged in the second group.
Again, find me something that says there were any different guidelines.
Corbyn came under the over 70s and he was clear he would not obey the guidelines, he said so. Your starting to sound like Cummings who also used the rules to weasel out of breaking them.
Corbyn, Cummings, Farage and others, who have been sacked, not to mention 20,000 fines issued by the police. People breaking the rules. And did you see the photograph of the press outside Cummings house clambering for a photo of him, no social distancing there as the Press jostled for the money shot. Now that is hypocritical.
The truth is what Cummings et al have done is no worse than thousands are doing every day and we all should know better. Don’t make it right but makes a great story for the media to jump on. He should have resigned, he hasn’t. It’s not the first time aides have screwed up and not been sacked. Even Corbyn got slated for that.
What gets me is not Cummings, who should go, but the hypocrisy of those digging at him whilst doing exactly the same. Hypocrisy is everywhere.
Have you not read what mick just wrote?
There is no breach from Corbyn here. The over 70s didn’t and do not have to lock themselves away, although there was lots of confusion around it because of the governments lack of clarity on the issue.
Staggering that the same old trolls are still laying into the bloke. Staggering.
Of course he chose not to comply. The advice is clear and so was his response.
Interestingly only 2 days ago Corbyn was photographed not following social distancing rules, chatting and having pictures taken with strangers. Comments from some people were anger, “We are following the rules but it seems Corbyn does not”. Says it all really.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 11:04 am
by Dohnut
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Not really. It’s just worth remembering that no matter how bad things appear and blaming those, like me, who voted Tory that the alternative to Johnson was considerably worse.
Never made any secret of my dislike for Johnson but I’d take him over Corbyn any day.
Much the same as I would take Starmer over Corbyn any day. Significant upgrade.
I would take Blair over the lot of them any day too.
All about choices at the time. I hope in a few years time we can choose who we feel is the best, rather than the least worse.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 11:42 am
by Millennial Snowflake
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Yep, anyone who isn’t a fan of Corbyn / Abbott or their politics is obviously a gammon right winger
Can’t beat logic like that
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 12:57 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:04 am
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Not really. It’s just worth remembering that no matter how bad things appear and blaming those, like me, who voted Tory that the alternative to Johnson was considerably worse.
Never made any secret of my dislike for Johnson but I’d take him over Corbyn any day.
Much the same as I would take Starmer over Corbyn any day. Significant upgrade.
I would take Blair over the lot of them any day too.
All about choices at the time. I hope in a few years time we can choose who we feel is the best, rather than the least worse.
Aah. That answers it.
It’s to assuage their guilt for voting in Johnson. By trying to convince themselves they had no other choice, they don’t have to take responsibility for the current shitstorm.
I can understand that.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 12:59 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:42 am
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Yep, anyone who isn’t a fan of Corbyn / Abbott or their politics is obviously a gammon right winger
Can’t beat logic like that
There’s a difference between not being a fan and this.
Maybe you need to question where your political position is if you don’t like being associated with the gammony gammons?
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:01 pm
by faldO
RedO wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 12:57 pm
Dohnut wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:04 am
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Not really. It’s just worth remembering that no matter how bad things appear and blaming those, like me, who voted Tory that the alternative to Johnson was considerably worse.
Never made any secret of my dislike for Johnson but I’d take him over Corbyn any day.
Much the same as I would take Starmer over Corbyn any day. Significant upgrade.
I would take Blair over the lot of them any day too.
All about choices at the time. I hope in a few years time we can choose who we feel is the best, rather than the least worse.
Aah. That answers it.
It’s to assuage their guilt for voting in Johnson. By trying to convince themselves they had no other choice, they don’t have to take responsibility for the current shitstorm.
I can understand that.
I don't recall seeing anything in the Labour manifesto about how they would deal with the current pandemic. Could you point it out please?
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:26 pm
by Admin
Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:42 am
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Yep, anyone who isn’t a fan of Corbyn / Abbott or their politics is obviously a gammon right winger
Can’t beat logic like that
RedO's beaten me to it. I'm genuinely curious as he has no relevance to the current situation yet they're constantly being brought into the subject, mainly by gammons. It's almost like they have to rely on a straw-man argument to defend the current government.
Notice you didn't (or couldn't) answer the question though.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:30 pm
by Nice Username
E10EU wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:22 am
Yet Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 when they tried to be more like the Tories. Remember the anti immigrant mugs?
In 2017 Labour with Corbyn's manifesto succeeded in wiping out the Tories majority - and that was DESPITE the media and many Labour MPs actively undermining the leader.
This always makes me laugh considering Labour's 2017 manifesto was easily the most right-wing of their manifestos on immigration in modern history. Literally called for the end of free movement before a Brexit deal had even been agreed. People also forget that the manifesto prioritised cutting tuition fees as well as explicitly stating they'd keep £6bn of the Tory benefit cuts.
Amazing what people will force themselves to believe to convince themselves they weren't supporting a dud.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 1:32 pm
by Nice Username
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 9:58 am
Nice Username wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 6:01 pm
Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 3:18 pm
Would you like to tell me how the guidelines for over 70's differered from the general guidance and how he broke those guidelines?
I'll give you a clue, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about and there was no specific guidance, you massive tw*t.
Actually, you're completely wrong:
Corbyn was regularly going to the House of Commons despite there being a clear work from home option for him. So there's a blatant breach of guideline 3. Guessing he probably took public transport to get there too.
Thanks for putting up the exact thing I was referring to. Everyone was told to follow social distancing, and to follow the guidelines stringently, telling one group to follow something more stringently is clearly nonsense. As I said there was no specific guidance for over 70's that was different to anyone else
They then came up with the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable otherwise known as the shielding group where there was specific guidance.
Obviously this caused confusion between clinically vulnerable and extremely clinically vulnerable and lots of people wrongly thought all over 70's belonged in the second group.
Again, find me something that says there were any different guidelines.
You asked how he broke the guidelines. Above are the guidelines, and how he broke them. Doesn't matter how many paragraphs you blather on for, you're still wrong.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 2:19 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
He was allowed to go to work at that time, so long as he stringently adhered to the social distancing guidelines.
Nice try, though.
Re: Labour Watch
Posted: Fri May 29, 2020 2:20 pm
by Ronnie Hotdogs
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 1:26 pm
Millennial Snowflake wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:42 am
Admin wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 10:48 am
Q: Why do all these gammon right wingers (some of whom pass themselves off as "Centrists") keep banging on about Corbyn / Abbott? Anyone would think they were running the country.
Yep, anyone who isn’t a fan of Corbyn / Abbott or their politics is obviously a gammon right winger
Can’t beat logic like that
RedO's beaten me to it. I'm genuinely curious as he has no relevance to the current situation yet they're constantly being brought into the subject, mainly by gammons. It's almost like they have to rely on a straw-man argument to defend the current government.
Notice you didn't (or couldn't) answer the question though.
I think I’ve answered it above - it’s so they can shirk the blame for voting these chancers in.