Search results

Ignore previous post - it was me being thick.

Sorry, it's been a long, stressful day today so this post has gone right over my head. I'm not sure if you're having a pop at me or what.

Okay, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the Indy. Re. Corbyn of course there is no contradiction if you vote for Corbyn knowing he has little chance of winning, it's entirely consistent with Cruddas' evidence because practically every major point in the platform Corbyn won the...

These findings are why Labour lost the elections in May. Contrary to what social media would have you believe, English voters haven't all jumped into bed with the Morning Star ready to embrace Corbynomics. Corbyn has had no bounce from the general electorate. That's practically unprecedented...

Bloody hell, Gwylan! You want your cake and eat it. First it's a Tory rag, then you say it's always been independent. Surely choosing who they think was the least worst at a particular time rather than slavishly following party lines is a true test of independence. It seems you got the hump...

The Indy was only ever a reluctant supporter and it all boiled down to economic prudence. If someone votes tactically or reluctantly to keep another party out, it doesn't necessarily make them a supporter of the party they voted for. They went for who they thought was best for Britain and they...

Far more worrying is the speech that Jon Cruddas gave the other night that was transcribed in full on LabourList. It was about the enquiry that the Labour Party set up to investigate why it lost the last election. I've summarised his points for brevity...

Sorry but that's utter rubbish. Papers can report how they like within guidelines, they are private enterprises and aim for a specific market sector. However, all broadsheets are very capable of giving credible reports on the news and they all do this well. It's in their business interests to...

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense.They gave a very reluctant endorsement of the Tories last time and purely on their belief of Labour's economic incompetence. They saw the Tories as the lesser of two evils. They'd been staunchly left of centre all the time before that and a regular read of...

Oh come on! The Telegraph not credible? It may be biased to the Tories but to claim it isn't credible is just childish. She quite clearly said it and they have reported it. Okay, you don't like the fact that the Telegraph reported it. How about the Independent...

I don't think the damage will just be done in rural areas, it plays into the hands of Corbyn's opponents once again. It's an accumulative drip-drip-drip and it shows spectacular naivety on the part of this shadow minister.

This is another vote-winner. The Shadow Farming Minister wants meat eaters to be treated like smokers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/food/11887317/Treat-meat-eaters-like-smokers-warns-Jeremy-Corbyns-new-vegan-farming-minister-Kerry-McCarthy.html I fully acknowledge that...

I think you'd have a difficult job arguing otherwise, even basing it on the assumption that the existing members voted for Corbyn: All 120,000 votes from pre-existing members, all 70,000 pre-existing affiliates vote for him still leaves 60,000 new members voting for Corbyn which would leave...

Labour Party's own data says so. Even if you apportion all of Corbyn's 120,000 full member votes to pre-existing members (there were 200,000 members in May), he therefore still gained 130,000 votes from new members, almost as many as the others got in total combined.

Actually, I think it's mostly a problem with English lefties and it's a curious thing. In France for example, both the left and the right have absolutely no problem with the idea of Gallic nationalism or wrapping themselves in the tricolour. There seems to be a large proportion of English...

This is all fine stuff and I can't disagree with a single word of what you say. My point is that if you prefer to perpetuate a capitalist system and try to make it more equitable/fairer/equal rather than change it for a socialist system then I reckon that makes you a capitalist.

Yeah, fair point I worded it badly. Essentially the point I was making was that if you are 'rich' then you're happy with the huge wealth gap between yourself and the poor to the extent that you don't do anything personally to re-distribute the bit that you clearly don't need but like to have...

You cannot be a socialist and be rich. It's as simple as that. Simple economics dictates that if someone gets rich then someone else is poorer. You want an equal society but are unwilling to cede your unequal share. And lifestyle socialism isn't socialism either. It doesn't matter how good a...