Jeremy Corbyn

@The Corbyn Haterz; Go on. Admit it. You're GUTTED aren't you?

Assuming you're talking about me, I'm not gutted. He's a nice guy living a nightmare, I'm glad to see the pressure off him for a day or two.

As others have said it doesn't really tell you anything. It was one of Labours safest seats (number 63 if you really want to know), so wasn't ever likely to change.

Turn out was terrible mind, 10,000 less than on general election numbers.

"McMahon’s victory, in the early hours of Friday morning, was viewed by many present at the count as a triumph in spite of Corbyn than because of him. "

You can almost smell the disappointment in that article that they're not reporting a UKIP win.

"UKIP's stunning win was viewed widely as a damning indictment of Corbyn's leadership."

@v8 its far too soon for Corbyn to be forced out in my opinion so no I'm not gutted at all.

This is the most 'UKIPy' thing I've read in a while...

Labour’s deputy leader also dismissed as “sour grapes” claims by the Ukip leader Nigel Farage that the result lacked legitimacy because of the high number of postal ballots from black and minority ethnic voters, some of whom have poor English. Farage, whose candidate John Bickley finished a distant second on 6,487, is to lodge a formal complaint.

"We thought we could win because people are fed up of the high number of immigrants. But it turns out those immigrants are allowed to vote too!"

On another note. I wish someone in the media would actually make it clear that 'Shoot to Kill' is not what a lot of people were made to believe it was. i.e. it isn't about using lethal force in an event like the Paris shootings.

On another note. I wish someone in the media would actually make it clear that 'Shoot to Kill' is not what a lot of people were made to believe it was. i.e. it isn't about using lethal force in an event like the Paris shootings.

Since it was the media who deliberately created that mistaken impression, I doubt that they will be in a hurry to clear it up.

Since it was the media who deliberately created that mistaken impression, I doubt that they will be in a hurry to clear it up.

or make voting compulsory, it does help down here in Oz. You at least have to think about it for a few seconds to avoid a fine.

Forced voting undermines the incentive for parties and movements to emerge that enthuse and engage people

If Labour want to get anywhere they need some younger people from outside London with ideas, not old folk in their London commie luvvie bubble.

Corbyn is the first London-based Labour leader since Attlee in 1955.

Strange, could have sworn Ed lived in Primrose Hill. And pretty sure Mr Blair didn't really live in his 2up 2 down house in the grim North.

So the "Oh shit,what have we done?" that goes with a Tory vote has probably kicked in earlier.

To be fair very few Tory voters expected the Tories to win the last general election, not even Cameron and Osborne expected to win, so I guess the "Oh shit,what have we done?" reaction from people who voted Tory but didn't expect them to win was/is probably quite significant.

dragon - Member

As others have said it doesn't really tell you anything. It was one of Labours safest seats (number 63 if you really want to know), so wasn't ever likely to change.

It tells us loads.

It tells us that the claim by Tory supporters such as yourself and jambalaya that Corbyn would without any question put off Labour voters is nonsense.

It's early days yet but Oldham has proved that Corbyn as leader does not automatically mean catastrophic electoral consequences for Labour - something which jambalaya and others said was an absolute certainty.

so wasn't ever likely to change

Why not?

Why not a spectacular and historical UKIP by-election victory in Oldham?

Plenty of stranger things have happened in recent by-election history, eg, 3 years ago George Galloway won the equally solid Labour seat of Bradford with a 10,000 majority. And a year ago in a by-election UKIP won a "safe" seat from the Tories after overturning a 10,000 Tory majority.

So come on, explain why the Labour vote didn't collapse in Oldham?

Guess you mean? Locally popular candidate from the sane wing of the party plus voters with a strong desire to keep ukip out. I'd have voted for McMahon in Oldham and I'm not Corbyn's biggest fan.

Mr Woppit - Member
Then: 14,784
Now: 10,722
Just saying.

Then 55%
Now 62%

Just saying!

Guess you mean?

I mean where's the predicted collapse in the Labour vote which Corbyn was supposedly guaranteed to bring?

According to you a "Locally popular candidate from sane wing of the party with a strong desire to keep ukip out" is completely immuned from the "Corbyn effect"

So the cracks are starting to appear in the "Corbyn is guaranteed to bring Labour electoral disaster"......now there's a surprise!

Btw Oldham, according to the press/media, should be absolutely futile territory for UKIP ....... remember "UKIP are threatening Labour in their heartlands"?

So what happened? Wasn't Corbyn being Labour leader suppose to be their wet dream? Or was that the Tories wet dream?

Not a bad result for the Tories. UKIP doing badly. Corbyn doing well enough he might still be leader in 2020. I'd think they would be quite happy to face a Corbyn led Labour in a general election.

As for postal votes? I think they should be restricted to anyone who has a good reason they can't vote in person. If you just can't be arsed popping into your local school then tough luck. Too open to abuse.

A senior judge made a scathing attack on the postal voting system yesterday, condemning the government for complacency in the face of fraud which would disgrace a "banana republic".

Richard Mawrey QC, presiding over a special election court in Birmingham, warned that there were no realistic systems in place to detect or prevent postal voting fraud at the general election. "Until there are, fraud will continue unabated," he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/politics.localgovernment

Not a bad result for the Tories. UKIP doing badly.

The Tory share of the vote [i]fell[/i] by almost 10% compared to 6 months ago, and the UKIP vote went up nearly 3%.

You obviously have your own meaning for the term "not a bad result".

The Tory share of the vote fell by almost 10% compared to 6 months ago, and the UKIP vote went up nearly 3%.

Tactical voting to UKIP obviously. I wouldn't infer too much from the Tory vote in a safe Labour seat.

Tactical voting to UKIP obviously.

Is that a joke? You've just claimed "UKIP doing badly".

Forgive me if the joke was obvious and I failed to recognise it as such.

Yes odd point this tbh

It may be fair to say it tells us nothing about the Tories but

Not a bad result for the Tories

It may be fair to say it tells us nothing about the Tories

Dunno.........the Labour vote went up 7%, the UKIP vote went up by 3%, and the Tory vote went down by 10%.

Where did most of the support that the Tories lost go?

UNfortunately what happens in safe labour seats probably wont be replicated elsewhere and By elections are not great barometers of public opinion GE outcomes anyway

That said its certainly not a good day for them and it may indicate they will lose voters to labour but I would want to see much more evidence of that.

I read a bit of the telegraph today, might as well have been reading the mail. Jesus it was depressing.

By elections are not great barometers of public opinion

They are certainly treated as such by the media, look at all the fuss created over recent UKIP by-election victories. Much was made with regards to them being a barometer of public opinion and a reflection of UKIP's standing.

And certainly had the Labour share of the vote in Oldham fallen by 10% yesterday, and the UKIP and Tory vote increased by 3% and 7% respectively, then I have little doubt that a great deal of fuss would have been made by the media.

I agree though that by-elections are different, very different. They almost never result in a change of government - people know that how they vote will make no difference, so they tend to vote with their hearts. This can result in hugely unexpected and stunning results in otherwise safe seats.

The very fact that nothing spectacular happened in Oldham yesterday is in fact in itself very revealing.

ernie the media get excited when summer is hot and winter is cold that said i agree with it it was remarkable because it was not.

ALso agree they would be droning on endlessly had the result been other than this

Is that a joke? You've just claimed "UKIP doing badly".

They did do badly. They hoped to win or get close. They didn't. Yhey hoped to take votes from Labour

There was a very sweary and sensible blog by the guy behind @election_data on Twitter, if I was a Labour supporter and it reappears - he seems to have taken it down - I would read it and take it to heart. Many on here could learn alot from it.

Well, okay, then, what did it say ?

I am a bit pissed, but my recollection is, in UKIP facing seats, essentially fight local on your achievements however small (potholes etc), recognise their issues with immigration rather than call them racists, but point out how you can help their economic prospects, and that is about all I can recall. This makes UKIP stressing Corbyn look like the Westminster Establishment because that is what they are discussing, whichis contrary to their anti establishment message. There is more about walking the streets but that escapes me other than it is a slow burn.

ernie_lynch - Member

Dunno.........the Labour vote went up 7%, the UKIP vote went up by 3%, and the Tory vote went down by 10%.

Where did most of the support that the Tories lost go?

Argentina?

JC (not Jesus Christ) must stay as a Labour leader otherwise there will be lack of entertainment. It is too soon for him to go as the seat is just getting warmer and comfortable.

Make it easier for me to vote next time.

😆

There was a very sweary and sensible blog by the guy behind @election_data on Twitter, if I was a Labour supporter and it reappears - he seems to have taken it down - I would read it and take it to heart. Many on here could learn alot from it.

I am a bit pissed, but my recollection is, in UKIP facing seats, essentially fight local on your achievements however small (potholes etc), recognise their issues with immigration rather than call them racists, but point out how you can help their economic prospects, and that is about all I can recall.

Surely the people who "could learn alot from it" are the Tories?

Since we now know that UKIP can win by-elections in very safe Tory seats but not it would appear in very safe Labour seats.

An open mind is always good- but one swallow does not make a summer

As someone who lives in Oldham can I respectfully say we are still coming to terms with the mini-roundabout, I would therefore caution against any assumptions of voter thinking or logic.

Though in East Oldham we can proudly boast an anti bombing MP.

UKIP will defnitely win seats from Labour. Voting irregularity still being investigated from the GE I understand. Formal compaints where issued by Tories and UKIP back in May. There is no lesson for the Tories in Oldham, its not a seat worth putting a lot of effort into, way more winnable seats elsewhere.

Video released today from Stop the War rally the day atfer the aid volunteer Alan Henning was beheaded showing Corbyn saying that his death was the "result of warmongering and jingo-ism". Another massive own goal from the terrorist sympathiser. He neglects to me tion the 10'000's of Yazhidi lives saved by striking IS in Iraq.

Another massive own goal from the terrorist sympathiser.

It doesn't seem to stop people voting Labour though, how bizarre.

No wait, it does stop people voting Labour it's just that the election in Oldham was rigged - is that correct?

Video released today from Stop the War rally the day atfer the aid volunteer Alan Henning was beheaded showing Corbyn saying that his death was the "result of warmongering and jingo-ism". Another massive own goal from the terrorist sympathiser.

[img] [/img]

Seems to be another massive own goal from jambalaya ^

Video released today from Stop the War rally the day atfer the aid volunteer Alan Henning was beheaded showing Corbyn saying that his death was the "result of warmongering and jingo-ism".

Mr Corbyn, who was speaking at a Stop The War rally, said: “I am pleased that we started with a period of silence for Alan Henning and all those others that have died in this appalling conflict.

“Because we have to remember them and remember that the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism is somebody else's son and somebody else's daughter either being killed or being killed by somebody else.”

jambalaya - Member

Another massive own goal from the terrorist sympathiser.

Which you had to invent.

For those interested in reality, rather than making stuff up, here's the video

It'd be funnier except I see the Telegraph is running with the exact same lie.

I'm now starting to believe that jambalaya is in fact a hardline corbyn supporter and just posts all the guff so that it can be discredited..

Sneaky... Very sneaky

I for one applaud your good work as chief myth debunker 🙂

UKIP will defnitely win seats from Labour

Another massive own goal from the terrorist sympathiser.

Who knows what he is but able to see the truth or speak it is not amongst his skill set.

He neglects to me tion the 10'000's of Yazhidi lives saved by striking IS in Iraq.

FWIW his comments were a general comment on war so he covered everyone so your point was not even correct.

Let's compare the two based on the propaganda and counter propaganda above to determine who the real terrorist sympathiser is ...

JC(not Jesus Christ) - a man with strong communist principle from the left/far left.

DC(not District Columbia) - a man with "capitalist" principle from the centre/or centre right whatever.

Now if you look carefully at the two of them you will see that one of them is very consistent and strong in his views.

Yes, you might say that both are very consistent in their views but you will realise that one of them need this view in order to be seen as champion of the weak.

Guess who is that? Guess who is consistently having the principle or ideology that was born out of revolution?

As usual I have presented my cryptic clue because to me there is no amount of counter propaganda will change that ...

Therefore, it is true that one of them is a terrorist sympathiser. You decide ...

If you cannot see that then they see you coming ... 😆

Edit: I think you need to use good nice looking retro propaganda poster to be honest as I like those retro propaganda poster. Why don't the come up with good looking retro propaganda poster nowadays? With people marching etc ...

It'd be funnier except I see the Telegraph is running with the exact same lie.

To be fair they've been running "world will end unless we bomb JC" headlines pretty much non stop since he was nominated for the Labour Party Leadership.

jambalaya - Member
UKIP will defnitely win seats from Labour. Voting irregularity still being investigated from the GE I understand. Formal compaints where issued by Tories and UKIP back in May. There is no lesson for the Tories in Oldham, its not a seat worth putting a lot of effort into, way more winnable seats elsewhere.

Video released today from Stop the War rally the day atfer the aid volunteer Alan Henning was beheaded showing Corbyn saying that his death was the "result of warmongering and jingo-ism". Another massive own goal from the terrorist sympathiser. He neglects to me tion the 10'000's of Yazhidi lives saved by striking IS in Iraq.

Out of curiosity, much does the tory party pay you to troll interweb forums? 😆

Out of curiosity, much does the tory party pay you to troll interweb forums?

Can't be much, he's not very good, plus he keeps signing off his posts "Conservative Party Central Office' ....

😀

seosamh77 - Member
Out of curiosity, much does the tory party pay you to troll interweb forums?

You do know that you have just scored your own goal by saying don't you or do you not see me coming? 😆

According to John McTernan in the Daily Telegraph the reason Labour easily won in Oldham is because the voters there weren't fully aware that Jeremy Corbyn is now leader of the Labour Party.

That is despite the fact he was mentioned extensively in election leaflets including this one by UKIP :

[img] [/img]

To be fair seeing how (like jambalaya's posts) insulting to most people's intelligence that leaflet is, I'm starting to understand how Labour so easily saw off the UKIP "threat" in their heartland.

ernie_lynch - Member

According to John McTernan in the Daily Telegraph the reason Labour easily won in Oldham is because the voters there weren't fully aware that Jeremy Corbyn is now leader of the Labour Party.

That is despite the fact he was mentioned extensively in election leaflets including this one by UKIP :

Labour won in Oldham but when was the last time other party won in Oldham?

Aren't you a bit quick to jump to conclusion?

I have met people in the North East who would not vote other party apart from Labour. Their views are rather simple ... Class war.

😯

Out of curiosity, much does the tory party pay you to troll interweb forums?

I believe Israel have a reasonable budget fort his kind of activity too.

Hanging onto a massively safe Labour seat with a local candidate who's very much a moderate in the party is hatdly an endorsement for the keadership is it ?

I did indeed listen to the speech before I posted, just like Len McClusky says Corbyn really needs to engage his brain before speaking. He just cant help himself.

All posting services gladly donated foc

jambalaya - Member

Corbyn really needs to engage his brain before speaking. He just cant help himself.

[img] [/img]

[quote=jambalaya opined]Hanging onto a massively safe Labour seat with a local candidate who's very much a moderate in the party is hatdly an endorsement for the keadership is it ?

On would imagine the way to protest your opposition to the current leadership and her methods would be to vote the party out in a relatively meaningless by election and give him a bloody nose. You know what you were predicting would happen. Now it has not then clearly delivering a great result for labour is definitely the way to show you hate the leader...who could argue otherwise with such an insight.

I did indeed listen to the speech before I posted,

just like Len McClusky says Corbyn really needs to engage his brain before speaking.

He just cant help himself.

I did indeed listen to the speech before I posted

jambalaya - Member

I did indeed listen to the speech before I posted

Nobody suggested otherwise. We know you're a compulsive liar, and that it really makes no difference to you whether you've listened to the speech or not.

We know you[s]'re a compulsive liar,[/s] work for Conservative Central Office

FIFY

If jambalaya is working for Conservative Central Office someone needs to get the sack.

I like how we're all ignoring him, these threads work much better for it.

Northwind you suggested the Telegrapgh was lying so feel free to contact IPSO, as you know with me those sort of accusations are like water off a ducks back.

Guardian suggesting there will be a purge of the Shadow Cabinet. IRONY, oh yes indeed from the man who voted against his own party and government 500 times doesnt like it when the boot is on the other foot. If there is a purge Corbyns credibility sink even further as the Shadow Cabinet sill look even lighter on experience.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/05/labour-corbyn-critics-fear-shadow-cabinet-revenge-reshuffle ]Guaedian Link[/url]

If jambalaya is working for Conservative Central Office someone needs to get the sack.

I like how we're all ignoring him

Indeed 😉 No need to ask about the motives though.....and we do have the full impact of Desmond too

Salut Jamba, ca va?

the trolls be a trolling and wise words squirell

Northwind you suggested the Telegrapgh was lying so feel free to contact IPSO

Because as everyone knows newspapers are only ever allowed to tell the truth.........that's why if you read something in the Daily Mail you know it must be true!

😆

He's such a gift to their cause.

And you jambalaya, are such a gift to all lefties on here 8)

I feel you should be on my christmas card list.

Don't feed the troll kids.

Guardian suggesting there will be a purge of the Shadow Cabinet. IRONY, oh yes indeed from the man who voted against his own party and government 500 times doesnt like it when the boot is on the other foot.

You obviously don't understand the difference between being a backbencher and being in the cabinet or shadow cabinet......politics not your forte?

The suggestion which has been made is that boundary review should be used as an opportunity to select Labour candidates which better represent today's new Labour Party - rather than the old irrelevant Blairite party.

For example on the bombing Syria vote 66 Labour MPs were completely at odds with the overwhelming view of the Labour Party - indeed even the overwhelming view of Labour MPs.

There is very clear evidence of serious disconnection between between many MPs and their party, as indisputably proved by the fact that 60% of party members and supporters voted for Corbyn to be their party leader while only 6% of MPs did.

Furthermore so undemocratic is the Labour Party that no Labour MP had the slightest idea of Corbyn's obvious popularity within the party, until it was too late for them to do anything about it. In fact they mistakenly thought that he had no support at all - how is it possible for MPs to understand so little about their own party?

To correct this obviously totally unacceptable situation does not amount to a "purge" but an exercise in democracy. The successful selection candidate simply needs to reflect the democratic will of those on whose behalf he or she is standing.

If however the local party wants to select a blairite candidate that's not a problem - Oldham proved that when after 45 years it switched from a left-wing parliamentary candidate to a much more right-wing candidate. No fuss was created and everyone was happy with the process - it was what the local party wanted.

Be suspicious of people who don't like democracy.

grum - Member

Don't feed the troll kids.

On the contrary, jambalaya gives me the perfect opportunity to hone my skills in taking on dishonest Tory nonsense.

Admittedly he provides no great challenge but I treat it like an easy bike ride which gets your legs spinning and is therefore still beneficial even if it isn't particularly challenging.

Don't feed the troll kids.

But who are the trolls?

Ernie - some interesting thoughts on that from Gaitskell:

[i]"Let me repeat what Manny Shinwell said, the place to decide the leadership of this party is not here, but in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and I would not wish, for one day, to remain a leader who had lost the confidence of his colleagues in Parliament"[/i]

Just imagine - A man of honour leading the Labour Party 😉

I've just seen on today's FT website that the Scottish Tories have carried out a widescale purge of the party, never mind talking about it ..... half their candidates have been ditched in a desperate attempt to make their party appear more electable in Scotland.

And also according to the FT Scottish Tories plan to limit the number of campaign visits made by Cameron during the Holyrood election campaign as he is seen as an election liability, which I guess is reasonable .... unlike Corbyn Cameron's views on bombing Syria were seriously at odds with the majority of Scots.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c49159a-99d1-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz3tY2FUoiR

jambalaya - Member

as you know with me those sort of accusations are like water off a ducks back.

Yep, we know that too 😆 Though, it's not an accusation, it's an observation.

The psychology of lying is complicated tbh, for some people credibility is important whereas others seem to enjoy it more when their lies are outrageous and easily seen through. In other words, some people like to mislead, some people like to make a noise.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c49159a-99d1-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html#axzz3tY2FUoiR
br />

Subscription only.

8)

Although I don't like to say it allthepies there is a way round it. If you do a search of :

Scotland Tories refreshes its election candidates

under Google News, it will provide you with a link that doesn't go via the paywall.

All FT links in Google News are free.

But who are the trolls?

The ones making greatest use of the Ad Hom Fallacy IME.

When used inappropriately, it[ad hom] is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] [b]Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact[/b] or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.t

unlike Corbyn Cameron's views on bombing Syria were seriously at odds with the majority of Scots.

[url= http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/yougov-subsample-suggests-scotland-is.html ]I'm not sure 41% is a majority[/url]

Northwind you suggested the Telegrapgh was lying so feel free to contact IPSO, as you know with me those sort of accusations are like water off a ducks back.

Corbyn [said] that [Henning's] death was the "result of warmongering and jingo-ism"

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious

It is. You can't simply confirm or refute an argument based on the credibility of the person stating it.

...but even if it wasn't playing the man rather than the argument isn't very nice, and trolls/people who now they are wrong typically use it and people who aren't trolling/know they are right typically avoid it.

when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact

Nope, you have to verify facts for yourself, you can't just assume a fact is true/false based on who said it.

mefty - Member

I'm not sure 41% is a majority

That is a very valid point.

However I was going on the understanding that 72% is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-poll-shows-uk-is-divided-over-decision-to-extend-bombing-a6756171.html

Although I'm sure you will question the validity of the poll.

EDIT : Your own link questions the validity of the poll which you refer to :

[i] The SNP lead in the Scottish subsample is unusually "low" : SNP 41%, Labour 24%, Conservatives 20%, UKIP 8%, Liberal Democrats 4%, Greens 2%. Although on the face of it that's bad news, it leaves open the possibility that there are too few SNP voters in the subsample as a result of normal sampling variation, in which case it's perfectly conceivable that Scottish opposition to air strikes is being underestimated by the above figures. The fact that a wildly implausible combined total of 28% of the subsample are Tory or UKIP voters would tend to support that theory.[/i]