Jeremy Corbyn.

alfredmizen · Jul 28, 2015

Hampster Gull said:
It was although you may or may not have meant it or may or may not have understood it. Can't help you

You cant, because it wasnt, there is nothing racist in pointing out the iniquity of people wanting to be rid of british rule , and then lots of those very same people desperately trying to gain entry to live here , nothing at all, if you believe there is , then you've got problems,.

***** EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT IS RACIST ABOUT THAT IF YOUR'E SO CONVINCED IT IS *****

JCL666 · Jul 28, 2015

This thread is odd.

Hampster Gull · Jul 28, 2015

alfredmizen said:
You cant, because it wasnt, there is nothing racist in pointing out the iniquity of people wanting to be rid of british rule , and then lots of those very same people desperately trying to gain entry to live here , nothing at all, if you believe there is , then you've got problems,.

***** EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT IS RACIST ABOUT THAT IF YOUR'E SO CONVINCED IT IS *****

Teenage Kicks

alfredmizen · Jul 28, 2015

Hampster Gull said:
Teenage Kicks

You're odd.

knocky1 · Jul 28, 2015

Guess what IM STUPID BUT I CAN USE UNDERLINE AND BOLD FUNCTIONS, CYBER BULLY AND RUIN THREADS

Diablo · Jul 28, 2015

JCL666 said:
This thread is odd.

It does seem to have deteriorated into a slanging match....I may have started it and if I could would like to close it. :bigwave:

Hampster Gull · Jul 28, 2015

Diablo said:
It does seem to have deteriorated into a slanging match....I may have started it and if I could would like to close it.

I may have contributed to it unwittingly and will declare out until dragged back in

Vegas Seagull · Jul 28, 2015

Diablo said:
It does seem to have deteriorated into a slanging match....I may have started it and if I could would like to close it.

Impossible, this is the 3rd thread so far & we're in running until results day 12 September....

Bozza · Jul 28, 2015

Thread posting bans and warnings handed out.

Please do NOT derail decent discussions in the way that has happened on this thread.

If someone has already tried to derail the thread, please just report it - do NOT respond with more of the same.

bhadebenhams · Jul 28, 2015

Well I don't care what you lot think, I thought he was lovely in Gavin and Stacey.

Westdene Seagull · Jul 28, 2015

bhadebenhams said:
Well I don't care what you lot think, I thought he was lovely in Gavin and Stacey.

Stop trying to derail the thread Debs

seagullsovergrimsby · Jul 28, 2015

beorhthelm said:
there not much to not get, he bottled it. he had a weekend of intense media scrutiny and decided that wasn't for him. which is fair enough, but its not something unexpected in modern politics. what he showed us when it comes to hard decisions he isn't up for it. not suitable material for PM of a nation.

I'm of the opinion that the media would have done their utmost to totally slag off not only him but also his family if he had announced his candidancy for the leadership. That weekend of media scrutiny was just childs play before the frenzy that would have followed.

Vegas Seagull · Jul 28, 2015

3 way change in the markets, Burnham drifting quickly, unsure why but his Death Tax for all @ 15% av £46k to the gov may be it? Evens to 7/4 in an hour whatever
Jez & Yvette sharply in

Questions · Jul 28, 2015

alfredmizen said:
yes id agree with this , a definite cause for concern , security wise, can you now point me towards the part where ive stated that corbyns support for the PIRA would've been a cause for concern security wise ?? Thats right you cant , because i havent said it , it was treachery , plain and simple, and i fail to see how anyone with a modicum of patriotism can support corbyn.

You keep insinuating that Corbyn condoned all of the PIRA action. That's crap. He may have acted inappropriately in his meetings quite so soon after some of the bombings but where in his past has he come across as a man who preaches violence. He tried to stop violence just as he did with Apartheid and his speaking out on Middle East issues.

Questions · Jul 28, 2015

Soulman said:
Few would argue with your views, but to bring up the past and put them into this situation has little bearing. Unlike the government at the time and Royals who were negotiating, this potential Labour leader was a supporter of the IRA.
If this chap is made the leader I think when his past is really in the public eye then most voters will not vote for the party. Shooting themselves in the foot again.

Do you not think he supported there cause for a united Ireland with the withdrawal of a foreign army as the Provisionals saw it ? I did. It was the argument of the day that if we withdrew there would be a bloodbath........there has been just about every time we have withdrawn from a country after occupying it.

Vegas Seagull · Jul 28, 2015

Vegas Seagull said:
3 way change in the markets, Burnham drifting quickly, unsure why but his Death Tax for all @ 15% av £46k to the gov may be it? Evens to 7/4 in an hour whatever
Jez & Yvette sharply in

Poll in the Mirror is the reason :
Corbyn 42
Cooper 23
Burnham 20
Kendall 14

However after the prefence system works its way through the final outcome is :
Corbyn 51
Cooper 49

Kuipers Supporters Club · Jul 28, 2015

Vegas Seagull said:
Poll in the Mirror is the reason :
Corbyn 42
Cooper 23
Burnham 20
Kendall 14

However after the prefence system works its way through the final outcome is :
Corbyn 51
Cooper 49

Ive been trying to work out how the voting will go:

If the current order keeps the same:

1st Round:

Corbyn - 42
Cooper - 23
Burnham - 20
-----------------------------
Kendall - 14 Once she is eliminated where will the 14 'points' (second preferences go)

2nd Round

Corbyn 43
Cooper - 29.5
--------------
Burnham 26.5

3rd Round - 26.5% of votes to be redistributed

Corbyn 51 (+ 8)
Cooper 49 (22.5) -

Just shows how fragmented the Labour party could become if Corbyn wins, gaining only 9% of 'second' ballots and nearly half the party opposing his ideology.

If Cooper or Burnham was to drop out - that would stop Corbyn IMO

Questions · Jul 28, 2015

spring hall convert said:
The reason for the Tory victory in '92 is tough to call.

Labour hinted that taxes may have to rise a penny in the pound if certain public services were to be helped. The greedy ****ers who were on board up till then then ran to the Tories. That's why Corbyn won't get in........... Socialism takes from the well off to support the less well off. I know , I know what a repugnant idea.

Kuipers Supporters Club · Jul 28, 2015

I've solved it for the Labour party - to stop Corbyn Cooper has to withdraw, not Burham or Kendell.

(This is based on my brief knowledge of the Labour party support and being a political type)

Cooper is currently on 23% and in second place - so why should she withdraw, the reason being she is the only candidate who's sacrifice could stop Corbyn.
Cooper's 23% of support would have to be redistributed - IMO if that were to happen it would occur in the following way:
45% of her support would go to Burnham meaning a rise of 10.35% for his support - putting him on 30.35% after the first round of voting (2nd place)
35% would go to Kendell, + 8.05% meaning a total support level of 22.05% - she would be eliminated in third place
20% would go to Corbyn +4.65% rise putting him on 46.6% going into the final round of voting in first place.

Final Round: Corbyn - 46.6% vs. Burnham - 30.35%

Kendell's 22.05% support would have to be redistributed - of her support, which is miles apart from Corbyn, I think he could still receive 10% of it.

That would mean Burnham could get a 19.845% from a 90% share of Kendell's support. Meaning the final results of:

Burnham ------- 50.195%
Corbyn ---------- 48.805% (In this scenario Corbyn would need to receive 15.45% of Kendell's support to take him just above the winning line - could he do that?)

Kuipers Supporters Club · Jul 28, 2015

Plooks said:
Why do they elect a leader this way when they don't think it is suitable to elect a government this way? Is it not massively hypocritical?

Labour had the chance, but having realised they liked winning, quickly scrapped the idea. I'd fully support looking into a move to STV instead of FPTP. It retains the local MP factor which is lost under some PR systems, but ensures you need 50% of the constituency support.

Opponents would say we don't elect a Governemnt - which although true on the face of it doesn't really tell the whole story.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Jeremy Corbyn.

Banned

absurdism

New member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

You can change this

Active member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

#cpfctinpotclub

New member

Habitual User

Habitual User

New member

Well-known member

Habitual User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page