Jeremy Corbyn

Mike are you nuts? If we’d had better scrutiny and comment instead of just reporting the lies during brexit we might not be in this mess.

The BBC isn’t right wing, if anything it’s traditional been seen to have leftist bias. Why are the BBC seen to be so critical of Corbyn?

1. Corbyn tries to articulate some policies (Maybot has the sense to have no policies), unfortunately they tend to be full of holes.
2. Corbyn is a gift to experienced interviewers as he’s not slick like Maybot, easy pickings.
3. The prevailing wind is anti Corbyn, there will be an element of following the herd.
4. Corbyn supporters are so wrapped up in their own confirmation bias world they just can’t believe others don’t see him as they do and they’really desperate for someone to blame.

We need a stronger more critical media, something the BBC seems to be attempting to do after they let us down over Brexit with their fact checking drive. Wanting to curtail the media is a very slippery slope towards Trumpton.

Disclaimer: I do not in any way support chairman May, she’s the absolutely worst sort of Middle England narrow minded Tory, she really doesn’t like people who are different, it’s personal. Unfortunately Corbyn has let us all down by first not opposing Brexit through apathy in the referendum and more recently by giving May an easy ride.

I used to buy the Telegraph before it degenerated into The Mail for people with red trousers.

But the crossword.
And of course, it’s always wise to know your enemy.
🙂

Aubron Waugh and Craig Brown were always brilliant, even to a ‘humourless’ lefty like me.
I hate Polly Toynbee almost as much as AW did.
🙂

And the sports, gardening and motoring coverage was excellent too.

I do wonder why no-one can find anyone who can put together a decent rousing speech. I reckon I could do loads better than any of this lot. So could a good slice of STW.

I do wonder why no-one can find anyone who can put together a decent rousing speech. I reckon I could do loads better than any of this lot. So could a good slice of STW.

Indeed Molls. They’re both as dull and uninspiring as each other. Lyndon Crosby is telling the Maybot exactly which 6 words she’s allowed to repeat endlessly, and Corbny’s are the opposite, just a string of consciousness. Literally thinking aloud. Aimlessly ambling through whatever is going on his head at the time. Somewhere between the two there is probably a happy medium.

Whats evident is why they’re both playing to safe, controlled, adoring audiences. May actually encountered a member of the public on camera today, and they asked her a question she didn’t have a prepared answer for.Still a tame question, delivered in an unthreatening manner, about childcare. She looked like a rabbit in the headlights!

And of course, it’s always wise to know your enemy.

I don’t like the word enemy but STW is perfect for that 😉

@molgrips the Labour Party has many people capable of making a powerful speech but they elected Corbyn and he has installed his cronies. The Corby-istas aren’t seasoned winners of elections or used to being in the public eye. They are used to preeching to the converted and opposing things whilst being very shouty.

They are used to preeching to the converted and opposing things whilst being very shouty.

Unlike Mummy who’s properly facing the public in York right now.

She didn’t even manage to make eye contact with the first reporter whose question was invited – but strangely, she knew her name.

If I was a Tory, I’d be hoping she gets an easy ride like this for another month. I’d actually kinda believed she was “safe” (not in any kind of positive way) at first, but the facade is slipping. She’s like a rabbit in the headlights whenever she’s caught off guard. And actually comes across as quite creepy – well, creepier than your everyday Tory, which is quite creepy indeed.

@molgrips the Labour Party has many people capable of making a powerful speech but they elected Corbyn

None of the candidates were any good at speaking really were they?

Calling a general elecfion in which her opponents voted to trigger and which will lead to her having a significant majority

Having previously said many times that she wouldn’t. A liar in other words.

Of course she’s a liar, that’s goes without saying. But it’s more relevant that it totally undermines “stable”. It couldn’t be any less so

Working for a long time with great determination to get Al Hamza extradited

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! MY LIFE IS SO MUCH BETTER!

I don’t think Theresa May is stable but it could be argued that someone happy to change their mind when confronted with spanners is more stable than someone sticking to the original plan regardless

But it’s more relevant that it totally undermines “stable”.

Does it though? And don’t misunderstand, I agree with what you say, I’m just sceptical that any if this gets through. In a liberal-progressive bubble (tentatively raises “guilty” hand), everyone sees through it. The question is how does the amount of voters that needs to see through it, erm, see through it? Dunno…just fatalistic as I prepare to hear soundbites of “ordinary voters” saying “Oh, I’ll be voting for Theresa, she seems much stronger.” 🙂

it could be argued that someone happy to change their mind when confronted with spanners is more stable than someone sticking to the original plan regardless

it could but you would have to not understand what stable means

It may be wise but it is not stable to reverse your position and do something you said you would not do. that is clearly “unstable”- ie not firmly fixed in position

I am not saying it was not politically astute it was but it is not stable

Well, that’s 2 parts. Yes it undermines it- she’s an unstable, blows-with-the-wind leader. But the facts of it aren’t enough, people need to believe it.

In the same vein, the whole “give me a strong mandate so I can negotiate harder in europe”- every leader she’s against has exactly the same mandate, they’ve all won elections, it’s not going to dazzle them. It’s just gibberish. But again that doesn’t matter, if people can be persuaded it’s true.

For me it seems really weird that “strong leader” is more important than what the person does. Genghis Khan was a strong leader, if he turned up today and said yes I’ll burn your houses and rape your women but I’m a strong leader- look I just rode Jeremy Corbyn down on my tiny horse- people’d probably vote for him. It’s like how you do it is more important than what you do- people will vote for her to strongly do stuff they don’t like, rather than Corbyn to weakly do things they do.

A liar in other words

A liar is someone who makes a statement knowing at that time it is untrue. If at a latter date due to altered circumstances you change your mind, well everyone does that at some point. Especially ALL politicians.
How do you know that when TM made the statement that she wouldn’t call an election she didn’t mean it at that point. The ability to change and adapt to changing circumstances is what politics is all about.

it could but you would have to not understand what stable means

Sane and sensible are not words I would use to describe Mrs May or the Government but it could be considered a sane and sensible reversal of previous policy.
Therefore one could describe the government as stable.

Having previously said many times that she wouldn’t. A liar in other words.

No, she just changed her mind

Woman’s prerogative isn’t it!

You could do anything but stable still wont be an accurate description of a PM [ or any other person] reversing their stated opinion- no one calls folk who regularly change their opinions “stable” or “strong”.

Strong and stable people definitely change their minds and reverse decisions.
You seem to be suggesting ‘stable’ can only mean fixed which is obviously untrue.

Are you sure you wouldn’t consider a person stable if they changed their mind based on new evidence or wise process. That doesn’t sound like something you would agree with.

I do agree that people can suggest it is also unstable but it’s not black and white and becomes opinion rather than fact.

Strong and stable. Ok – what about competent?

It’s a meaningless soundbite, stop talking about it.

How do you know that when TM made the statement that she wouldn’t call an election she didn’t mean it at that point.

Ah, well – as long as she meant it at the time, she can say what she wants.

You seem to be suggesting ‘stable’ can only mean fixed which is obviously untrue.

you seem to be suggesting it means not fixed and movable.

I think mine is a better definition than yours.
Molly point is true as well its a meaningless soundbite and i shall stop.

Molgrips said whaaaatt..

It’s a meaningless soundbite, stop talking about it.

Boom Boom. 😆 😆 Somebody’s hijacked molgrips account, can the mods sort it asap

Yes of course a competent person can still make u turns and change their mind regularly. Odd question..

you seem to be suggesting it means not fixed and movable.

That is exactly what I’m suggesting within this discussion using the context in which it is used, which is a fact as far as I’m aware. The dictionary seems to agree and I am 99.9% sure you agree tbh. We can agree to disagree.
😕

It isn’t the biggest issue in the world but many here continually call out others for making opinion sound like fact but are happy to wear the posh slipper when it suits their own bias.

I don’t think Theresa May is stable but it could be argued that someone happy to change their mind when confronted with spanners is more stable than someone sticking to the original plan regardless

It could be. Unfortunately this logic was not applied when Laura Toryburg insisted on asking Corbyn over and over and over and over if he would take Britain out of the EU whatever. Of course he could not truthfully say yes, and it would be foolish to do so – things can change in unpredictable ways.

If Maybot had anything but a passing realtionship with the truth, she would have acknowledged as much when asked about a snap election. She dd not.

The biggest problem with Strong And Stable (apart from the fact that she’s neither) is that it makes up such a large percentage of what she and the rest of the party are pledging, just seems somewhat lacking in substance.

Strong: Her leadership is light-years ahead of her primary rival, Corbyn.

Stable: the more I think about this the cleverer it is. Stable in terms of Government continuity but I think there is a second “hidden” meaning as Corbyn is un-stable, a crazy Marxist liable to off the cuff lunacy like Police shouldn’t shoot terrorists or nuclear subs without missiles.

the more I think about this the cleverer it is.

You are experiencing confirmation bias.

a crazy Marxist

I though May was the Marxist these days. I can’t keep up with the flip flopping. clicky

You are experiencing confirmation bias.

Is that what we’re calling it now? 😆

you seem to be suggesting it means not fixed and movable.

That is exactly what I’m suggesting within this discussion using the context in which it is used, which is a fact as far as I’m aware. The dictionary seems to agree 😯

NO it does not the dictionary does not say stable – a person who changes their opinion and has no fixed position , something movable and not fixed.
It really does not and that is just false.
Changing positions on issues is the antithesis of stable

What would you make if i asked for a stable base for a statue?
What does the dictionary say you should make?
You are just wrong now

Is that what we’re calling it now?

He likes Tories, that’s his thing, that’s his position. So he looks at all this craziness and sees a clever plan. Whereas we look at it and see chaos and incompetence. No-one’s immune from confirmation bias.

Strong: Her leadership is light-years ahead of her primary rival, Corbyn.

Even if that were true that doesn’t mean she is strong. Cardboard is stronger than paper but that still doesn’t make cardboard strong.

She still seems to have no policies and just repeating Strong and Stable means nothing. As I said, you seem to be completely fooled by her but then I guess it is impossible for you to look at her objectively.

Labour’s Shadow Education Secreatry gets the LBC / Nick Ferrari treatment. Unable tonsay how many children would be affected by Labour policy pledge to reduce class sizes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/10/angela-rayner-diane-abbott-style-car-crash-interview-education/

I guess it is impossible for you to look at her objectively

Mummmmmmmmyyyyyy. 😀

jambalaya – Member

Strong: Her leadership is light-years ahead of her primary rival, Corbyn.I think you’ve confused her leadership with those who pull her strings. They are indeed very strong.

I’m not sure it’s a positive thing though.

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes.I wonder if the media and Tories will stop reporting thier lies that thier is a 45bn gap

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes.I wonder if the media and Tories will stop reporting thier lies that thier is a 45bn gap

You’re joking. Did they take the 350m off the bus ?

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes.

JC’s got more chance of giving up politics to open a unicorn petting zoo than a Labour budget balancing so I wouldn’t spend too long speculating on that scenario.

Although to be fair, its much easier to make your budget balance when you’re only paying policemen £30 a year….

You don’t believe the IFS?

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes

I would start asking how you are going to pay for the 500,000,000,000 pound
Investment Bank
Spending Bank
Debt Bank