Corbynomics: A Dystopia

gadgetmind

Generali wrote: »

Let's face it Moby, by far the largest amount of hate spilled on this thread has been your repeated ad hominem attacks on other posters.

Absolutely. Loads of people discussing the issues, one left wing idiot attacking people for their views.

gadgetmind

Moby wrote: »

the bores you see dressed in their pringle jumpers propping up the golf club bar.

That's called the out-group homogeneity effect, and it's a big part of why Labour lost the 2015 election in such a dramatic way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity

Those who disliked Labour's policies back then (because GOK what they are now!) were perfectly ordinary working men and women who regard Labour as being a party for "drop outs". And now it's being run by a drop out, so progress sounds unlikely!

Did you read the Labour report I linked to? Any comments on why Labour fails to appeal to few outside CD social groups and the unemployed?

For the record, and just to show you how your prejudices can lead you astray, I'm a scruffy engineer in the North, who doesn't play golf or own a jumper (we're hard up here!), and who isn't particularly right wing.

Exactly the kind of person who didn't vote Labour.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Really! Absolute tosh. This thread is a vehicle for repeated gratutious abuse in one direction only reminicent of the bores you see dressed in their pringle jumpers propping up the golf club bar. I merely re-dress the imbalance!;) Also to accuse me of ad hominen attacks is rich considering you created the thread for the very same purpose. Hypocrite!

The only gratutious abuse on this thread comes from your mouth.

And the above would be, just another example of it.:rotfl:

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Really! Absolute tosh. This thread is a vehicle for repeated gratutious abuse in one direction only reminicent of the bores you see dressed in their pringle jumpers propping up the golf club bar. I merely re-dress the imbalance!;) Also to accuse me of ad hominen attacks is rich considering you created the thread for the very same purpose. Hypocrite!

Well let's have a look at the evidence shall we...?

Generali wrote: »

NB I did not write this nor do I agree with it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207363/Prime-Minister-Corbyn-1-000-days-destroyed-Britain-brilliant-imagining-Corbyn-premiership-reveals-Tories-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html

It's bloody funny though:rotfl:



The Daily Mail sinks to lows not seen since its support for Hitler.

Oh well. Something to cheer us all up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw

Hmm. Not much sign of the thread being started to kick Mr Corbyn. In fact it was to show up a particularly risible piece of scaremongering about Mr C.

So perhaps you can take your accusation of hypocrisy and stick it where the sun don't shine. If you are going to bandy around crap like that you can at least make sure you're right.

Still it fits your MO on this thread: chuck around nasty accusations and the truth be damned.

If anyone is the hypocrite it's you!

Anyway.....

Another Sunday, another appalling opinion poll for Labour, especially bearing in mind that IPSOS Mori hasn't updated their polling fully to account for the mess at the last election:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9591

Con: 40%
Lab: 31%
UKIP: 11%
Lib Dem: 7%

MORI also asked respondents to choose between the parties on various more specific measures – a bank of questions with back data going back to 1989:

• On having the “best policies for the country as a whole” the Conservatives now lead by ten points (compared to a two point Tory lead in 2010 and 2014, and a Labour lead from 1992 to 2005).
• On being the most clear and united about its policies the Conservatives lead by twenty points (compared to ten points in 2014, five points in 2010. The last time there was a lead this big was a 31 point lead for Labour in 2001.)
• On having the best “team of leaders” the Conservatives lead by twenty-seven points (compared to eleven points in 2014 and five points in 2010 – again you need to go back to Labour in 2001 to find a larger lead)
• The only measure where Labour haven’t collapsed is “looking after the interests of people like yourself” – here the Conservatives have a narrow lead of four points, compared to a two point Labour lead in 2014 and a four point Tory lead in 2010.
• The other policy MORI asked about was Trident. 58% of people opposed Britain getting rid of nuclear weapons, rising to 70% when it was asked specifically about unilateral disarmament… a similar figure to when MORI asked the same question in the 1980s.

Of course if Labour lose the next election, Labour will have had 1 PM elected in 51 years by the time the 2025 election comes around. It is very hard to see how they can keep going as a party with mass appeal if they don't hold power. Even the Scots don't seem that fussed by them.


If we look at the Mori post mortem of the election:


https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide


Labour only won among 18-34 year olds and social groups D & E (manual workers and people that make most of their money from welfare).


These groups are both unlikely to vote and are shrinking as a total part of the population. For Labour ever to win again they need to expand their popularity beyond the very poor and the very young. Policies that the vast majority hate (such as unilateral disarmament) simply are not going to bring voters back to Labour.

Sapphire

Quote from McDonnell: 'Inevitably in this century we will have open borders, we're seeing it in Europe already. The movement of peoples across the globe will mean that borders are almost going to become irrelevant by the end of this century, so we should be preparing for that and explaining why people move.'

I don't think the above – involving letting in the illegal migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia (including places like Pakistan and Myanmar), as proposed by labour, would go down too well with the majority of the indigenous populations of Europe. With a homogenous population, achieved after considerable strife (currently 'just' appearing via such things as sex attacks of primitive youths posing as children and terrorist attacks) and with the physically strongest surviving, the world would end up with a huge mass of very poor people everywhere. The giant corporations at the top would employ those that are willing to work for the least money, with a majority left destitute. Such a scenario would probably eventually result in the destruction of the middle classes in Europe – which is perhaps what such corporations want, and with most people living in poverty. The international corporations are divorced from national or human concerns and care only about profits for the world's richest individuals. Is this truly what labour wants? Have these people not learnt anything from history? Luckily, such a scenario will not occur, because the populations of Europe will not permit it. We are already seeing resistance to the invasion in Europe, and it will only get worse if the influx of people is not stopped (decisively).

Labour seem to be completely out of touch with voters, and pandering only to their minority clique. They appear to be run by prize idiots who exist in some 1970s' time warp and are out of step with most Britons on practically every issue.

Moby

Sapphire wrote: »

Quote from McDonnell: 'Inevitably in this century we will have open borders, we're seeing it in Europe already. The movement of peoples across the globe will mean that borders are almost going to become irrelevant by the end of this century, so we should be preparing for that and explaining why people move.'

I don't think the above – involving letting in the illegal migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia (including places like Pakistan and Myanmar), as proposed by labour, would go down too well with the majority of the indigenous populations of Europe. With a homogenous population, achieved after considerable strife (currently 'just' appearing via such things as sex attacks of primitive youths posing as children and terrorist attacks) and with the physically strongest surviving, the world would end up with a huge mass of very poor people everywhere. The giant corporations at the top would employ those that are willing to work for the least money, with a majority left destitute. Such a scenario would probably eventually result in the destruction of the middle classes in Europe – which is perhaps what such corporations want, and with most people living in poverty. The international corporations are divorced from national or human concerns and care only about profits for the world's richest individuals. Is this truly what labour wants? Have these people not learnt anything from history? Luckily, such a scenario will not occur, because the populations of Europe will not permit it. We are already seeing resistance to the invasion in Europe, and it will only get worse if the influx of people is not stopped (decisively).

Labour seem to be completely out of touch with voters, and pandering only to their minority clique. They appear to be run by prize idiots who exist in some 1970s' time warp and are out of step with most Britons on practically every issue.

Donald Trump is saying exactly the same things. Perhaps we should build a wall across Eastern Europe? By the way I saw that Mc Donell interview. He was perfectly reasonable and moderate in what he said. No reporting of that on this thread of course. Just the usual partisan hate filled bigotry from the usual suspects...... None of whom mention 'call me Dave's latest faux pas and its reception in the UK?......... But that would defeat the objective of this nasty little thread wouldnt it.....The nasty little ad hominem attacks on JC and anyone who dares to agree with him!

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

The only gratutious abuse on this thread comes from your mouth.

And the above would be, just another example of it.:rotfl:

Really...... So it was me who described a new female Labour MP as having a 'malformed brain'. It was obviously me who threw around accusations of being a 'terrorist sympathiser'. It was me at various times who has used loads of abusive adjectives about JC in my posts? Look a few posts above and I'm referred to as 'one left wing idiot'....... Clearly I'm out of step with my socially minded fellow posters who are all acting perfectly reasonably as we debate British political developments from a totally unbiased perspective.:p Tosh! as usual from the same old biased clique. This thread is a vehicle for abuse and hate directed at those of us who are left of centre under the spurious cover of it being about economics. Perhaps gadget will pop along soon and post an analysis of this post found in one of his 'popular' psychology books!:rotfl:

By the way my right wing friends........people are themselves capable of reading an analysis as to why Labour lost the election.......without continual links being posted. Methinks the true motive of this so called linking to such analysis is just another attempt to wind up fellow posters! Typical behaviour of the golf club bar room bore!

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Really...... ...

Yes. Your major contribution to this thread has been to pop along every so often and attack contributors for being "right wing haters" etc and so forth.

And by the way, you owe Generali an apology.:)

Moby wrote: »

...So it was me who described a new female Labour MP as having a malformed brain. ......

Well if you keep going with you ad hominem attacks, someone is bound to retaliate.:)

Moby wrote: »

..It was obviously me who threw around accusations of being a terrorist sympathiser....

There is a considerable body of evidence to show that both Saint Jeremy, and his sidekick McDonnell were sympathetic to the aims of a terrorist organisation known as the IRA.

Moby wrote: »

....It was me at various times who has used loads of abusive adjectives about JC in my posts? ....

No, your abusive adjectives have been directed at other people.

Moby wrote: »

...
Tosh as usual from the same old biased clique. This thread is a vehicle for abuse and hate directed at those of us who are left of centre under the spurious cover of it being about economics. Perhaps gadget will pop along soon and post an analysis of this post found in one of his 'popular' psychology books!:rotfl:

By the way my right wing friends........people are capable of reading an analysis as to why Labour lost the election.......without continual links being posted. Methinks the true motive of this so called linking to such analysis is just another attempt to wind up fellow posters!

Methinks the true motive behind your continual repetition of the same post is an effort to "wind up fellow posters"! Perhaps you are hoping that your attacks will succeed in ramping up the level of invective to such an extent that you can get the thread closed or deleted.:)

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Methinks the true motive behind your continual repetition of the same post is an effort to "wind up fellow posters"! Perhaps you are hoping that your attacks will succeed in ramping up the level of invective to such an extent that you can get the thread closed or deleted.:)

Sadly typical of the sort of personthat throws around allegations of hypocrisy. I'm not holding my breath for an apology either.

Unfortunately this sort feel completely justified in slinging whatever spite comes to mind. It's all completely off topic of course and uncalled for too.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand. I wonder how long this disaster will be allowed to drift on (I mean the Corbyn leadership, not this thread). Labour have a tradition of not sacking leaders, they are allowed to lose the election and then expected to quit. What then happens if Mr Corbyn won't quit?

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Yes. Your major contribution to this thread has been to pop along every so often and attack contributors for being "right wing haters" etc and so forth.

And by the way, you owe Generali an apology.:)

It's called addressing the imbalance. Regarding the apology... I think you've got that one the wrong way round!

Well if you keep going with you ad hominem attacks, someone is bound to retaliate.:)

A few posts above you said I was the only one doing it....and remember I didn't start such a contentious thread!

There is a considerable body of evidence to show that both Saint Jeremy, and his sidekick McDonnell were sympathetic to the aims of a terrorist organisation known as the IRA.

In your world!

No, your abusive adjectives have been directed at other people.

Garble

Methinks the true motive behind your continual repetition of the same post is an effort to "wind up fellow posters"! Perhaps you are hoping that your attacks will succeed in ramping up the level of invective to such an extent that you can get the thread closed or deleted.:)

No ...it's a response to repeated bigotry against the same man! I note with interest there have been no posts on this thread about McConnell's new economic forum......which is surely highly relevant to such a thread. The reality of course is that there is no mention because that is not the real purpose of the thread!