buctootim Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Yup. But the problem goes far beyond Corbyn. Corbyn is only there because they have no one else to turn to. No one else is there. And the reason there is no one else is because the current Labour Party has no identity, serves no purpose and has little or no philosophy of any substance. The cult of Blairism inevitably died (The more Blairite the candidate was at the leadership contest, the worse they did) and it's left a party which is little more than a cluster**** of left-wingers and career politicians pretending their remotely interested in the working class. Which is why Corbyn's election was a good thing. All the other leadership candidates stood for more of the same stuff which has already been rejected at two general elections. Corbyn leadership has ignited an open debate about what the party should stand for and will likely lead to some desertions. In the short term thats a bad thing, in the long term it will lead to a renewed party with credible policies and the emergence of an electable leader who is neither 'Blairite' or a 'Corbynista' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Which is why Corbyn's election was a good thing. All the other leadership candidates stood for more of the same stuff which has already been rejected at two general elections. Corbyn leadership has ignited an open debate about what the party should stand for and will likely lead to some desertions. In the short term thats a bad thing, in the long term it will lead to a renewed party with credible policies and the emergence of an electable leader who is neither 'Blairite' or a 'Corbynista' . Except I don't think it was Blairite policies which the country rejected, it was just Milliband was unelectable and Labour just happened to be in power when the global crash happened. It's not hard for Cameron to look the best bet for PM when the opposition oversaw the disaster and their leader is a cartoon character with a speech defect. A cente left, Blair style Labour is the only Labour that would get into power IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Except I don't think it was Blairite policies which the country rejected, it was just Milliband was unelectable and Labour just happened to be in power when the global crash happened. It's not hard for Cameron to look the best bet for PM when the opposition oversaw the disaster and their leader is a cartoon character with a speech defect. A cente left, Blair style Labour is the only Labour that would get into power IMO. I agree its the people that have to change more than the policies. Burnham, Kendall and Cooper are all inextricably linked with Blair and Brown - and thats an electoral negative rightly or wrongly. Labour needs to find a conviction instead of soundbite politician. If they campaign on sorting out housing affordability, corporate tax avoidance and promise to keep the Tories spending limits they'd walk it imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Not sure why. I hate the Tories and all they stand for with a passion, but I would have to think twice before giving him the keys to no10. I agree with some of his policies but certain things, like his hug a terrorist approach, make him simply unelectable. Surely the largest effects of a government is the party running it rather than the figurehead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Surely the largest effects of a government is the party running it rather than the figurehead? Are John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Seamus Milne playing central, front line roles in Her Majesty's Opposition through total coincidence then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Surely the largest effects of a government is the party running it rather than the figurehead? Yes, but that has little to do with how electable they are. The largest effects of the last labour government was caused by the global crash. Whoever was in charge at that time would be easily blamed by their opposition and have the **** kicked out of them by the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Looks like the BBC are going to great lengths to even up the anti-party leader bias... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-slammed-live-on-tv-by-andrew-marr-show-band-squeeze-a6804751.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Thanks for that. Could you now give the political affiliations of the other 20,000 BBC employees? According to a MORI poll in 2015, and to the question, "Of all news sources, which one source are you most likely to turn to if you want impartial news coverage?" the answers were: BBC News: 53% Other: 21% ITV News: 11% Sky News: 8% Don't know: 4% Channel 4 News: 3% This is an annual survey, and the BBC's share of this trust has been growing with the British public year-on-year. Seems like the Corbynistas and their fellow travellers have an unhappy relationship with reality, preferring to wallow in their self-serving and delusional conspiracy theories about the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 (edited) With those hardened commie credentials, I'm surprised Andrew Neil isn't calling for the liquidation of kulaks and mensheviks. #bbcfifthcolumn #allintheeyes Edited 10 January, 2016 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Thanks for that. Could you now give the political affiliations of the other 20,000 BBC employees? According to a MORI poll in 2015, and to the question, "Of all news sources, which one source are you most likely to turn to if you want impartial news coverage?" the answers were: BBC News: 53% Other: 21% ITV News: 11% Sky News: 8% Don't know: 4% Channel 4 News: 3% This is an annual survey, and the BBC's share of this trust has been growing with the British public year-on-year. Seems like the Corbynistas and their fellow travellers have an unhappy relationship with reality, preferring to wallow in their self-serving and delusional conspiracy theories about the BBC. Herbal - the Daily Politics Show isn't news - its what Richard and Judy would do if they fronted a current affairs programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Thanks for that. Could you now give the political affiliations of the other 20,000 BBC employees? According to a MORI poll in 2015, and to the question, "Of all news sources, which one source are you most likely to turn to if you want impartial news coverage?" the answers were: BBC News: 53% Other: 21% ITV News: 11% Sky News: 8% Don't know: 4% Channel 4 News: 3% This is an annual survey, and the BBC's share of this trust has been growing with the British public year-on-year. Seems like the Corbynistas and their fellow travellers have an unhappy relationship with reality, preferring to wallow in their self-serving and delusional conspiracy theories about the BBC. Well Maureen the cleaner used to be Pol Pot's masseuse but then I'd say her background was pretty irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 January, 2016 Share Posted 10 January, 2016 Pol Pot He didn't have a happy ending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 The UKs natural politics is Blairite. The Tories only manage to stick down deep roots in government because Labour periodicially blow a brain fart and make themselves unelectable, as they are doing now. Cameron has tried to position the Tories only slightly right of Blairite (nobody serious can claim they are anywhere near Thatcherite), but is failing dismally to convince people they care about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 Another half an hour and the Daily Politics would have had another exclusive... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35281203 Labour's McKinnell quits shadow cabinet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 The UKs natural politics is Blairite. The Tories only manage to stick down deep roots in government because Labour periodicially blow a brain fart and make themselves unelectable, as they are doing now. Cameron has tried to position the Tories only slightly right of Blairite (nobody serious can claim they are anywhere near Thatcherite), but is failing dismally to convince people they care about them. I don't know if I necessarily agree it's naturally more Blairite (I'd say more centre-right) but Blair was able to position left/socialist policies in a way that was palatable to the public. When you put aside his failure in Iraq, he got an enormous amount done alongside Brown. The trouble wth Cameron (who has said he was influenced by Blair) + Osborne, is they don't have the same gravitas or ability to persuade, and I think the public after years of positive Labour policies eg NHS investment, got used to less individualistic policies. Therefore they don't have the same respect, and there is a level of mistrust towards them and their party on a wider scale. For what they are - centre right - they should be doing better than they have - the success they have had is based on Labour failures. If Blair came back tomorrow, while the detractors would be baying for blood, I'm not so sure the mass (non protesting) public wouldn't vote for him again. Obviously, this is my gut feel rather than evidence based, so feel free to pick apart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 I don't know if I necessarily agree it's naturally more Blairite (I'd say more centre-right) but Blair was able to position left/socialist policies in a way that was palatable to the public. When you put aside his failure in Iraq, he got an enormous amount done alongside Brown. The trouble wth Cameron (who has said he was influenced by Blair) + Osborne, is they don't have the same gravitas or ability to persuade, and I think the public after years of positive Labour policies eg NHS investment, got used to less individualistic policies. Therefore they don't have the same respect, and there is a level of mistrust towards them and their party on a wider scale. For what they are - centre right - they should be doing better than they have - the success they have had is based on Labour failures. If Blair came back tomorrow, while the detractors would be baying for blood, I'm not so sure the mass (non protesting) public wouldn't vote for him again. The Blair/ Brown years were pure smoke & mirrors . PFI, minimum wage so low as to be meaningless , ridiculous spread of tax credits , devolution without addressing the west lothian question , overspending during a boom . Their chickens have well and truly came home to roost. I'm not saying this lot are any better as they're also shying away from the fundamental reforms needed , whilst pretending they are doing so. The public would not vote for a returning Blair anymore than they'd vote for Jeremy Steptoe . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 The Blair/ Brown years were pure smoke & mirrors . PFI, minimum wage so low as to be meaningless , ridiculous spread of tax credits , devolution without addressing the west lothian question , overspending during a boom . Their chickens have well and truly came home to roost. I'm not saying this lot are any better as they're also shying away from the fundamental reforms needed , whilst pretending they are doing so. The public would not vote for a returning Blair anymore than they'd vote for Jeremy Steptoe . Blair would never get re-ected purely because the mess he has made of the Middle East with his illegal war, they are the only chickens coming home to roost. The idea that New Labour was dead and buried because of the last election defeat and the party had to go in a different direction nonsense IMO. Labour lost because they had an unelectable leader and just happened to be in power when the global crash hit. A similar Blair style Labour could easily win again, especially if the Tories are in power when the next crash hits. In a way this period with Corbyn in charge could prove to be a good watershed for Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 Blair would never get re-ected purely because the mess he has made of the Middle East with his illegal war, they are the only chickens coming home to roost. The idea that New Labour was dead and buried because of the last election defeat and the party had to go in a different direction nonsense IMO. Labour lost because they had an unelectable leader and just happened to be in power when the global crash hit. A similar Blair style Labour could easily win again, especially if the Tories are in power when the next crash hits. In a way this period with Corbyn in charge could prove to be a good watershed for Labour. As Kinnock was ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 Oh dear, your liberalism seems to have eaten itself. The world according to Verbal - Reports I agree with are entirely balanced. Reports I disagree with are preposterous, cretinous and Pravda like. I don't think that we have to take Verbal's opinions on Corbyn too seriously. After all, he did state categorically that there was no way that Corbyn would be elected leader of the Labour Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 11 January, 2016 Share Posted 11 January, 2016 As Kinnock was ? Can't see Corbyn hanging around that long somehow. My point is it is all about perceptions, at least now when David Milliband or someone similar takes over with a half decent team it might appear like a fresh, more electable Labour - not just another bunch of career politicians (which is how it would have been perceived had the current clowns not taken charge). That's assuming Labour can elect someone half decent, which is a big assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 Could at least one of the Stalinists advising Jezza mention that he might read a newspaper now and then? It's staggering that a week went by in PMQs without Labour even bringing up the junior doctors' strike. It was hard for the rest of us to miss - the first doctors' strike in 40 years. It's also hard to miss that the public are firmly on the doctors' side, and that the other Jezza, (H)unt, has made a complete mess of things. In other words, this was a gaping open goal for Corbyn, one which would have attracted wide support - and it was above all a golden opportunity to actually hold this appalling government to account. And yet - not a word from our Great Leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/14/beckett-report-labour-lost-2015-election-economy-immigrants-benefits Turns out that (no ****), Labour lost the election over the economy, immigration and welfare. Wasn't Jeremy a great choice! I tell you what, the Tories have done very well keeping their powder dry in terms of holding off from attacking Corbyn in order to make sure he remains leader for as long as possible. If the Corbynites are unhappy with how he's being portrayed in the media now then they'll be in for a hell of shock if and when Corbyn is still Labour leader in the run-up to 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 An alternative viewpoint - in the interest of balance you understand http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/self-appointed-moderates-delusional.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 An alternative viewpoint - in the interest of balance you understand http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/self-appointed-moderates-delusional.html I think you've just made Stan's point better than he did himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 An alternative viewpoint - in the interest of balance you understand http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/self-appointed-moderates-delusional.html I do hope that's not the best the Corbynists can do, because it's truly pathetic. Worse, it's dangerous. Take this quote: Astonishingly after almost four decades of Thatcherite assault elements of Attlee's reforms still survive, but for how long it's hard to say. Perhaps the next big economic crisis will be just the excuse the Tories are looking for to abolish the NHS and scrap what remains of the welfare state? Or perhaps it will allow a progressive Labour Party to sweep back into power to make all the changes that the Blairites abjectly failed to make during their 13 long years in power? It starts with an appalling piece of blinkered thinking, that the only reforms worth considering are Attlee's. Attlee won one election and then lost one (defeated, ironically, over a party split against his chancellor's austerity budget). Harold Wilson and Tony Blair (the ultimate class enemies of the Corbynists) between them won seven and were never defeated. And in the time they were in office - a combined 24 years to Attlee's 5 - they oversaw some of the greatest social and political reforms of the last half-century. Should we be defending these? Who knows? Because only Attlee gets a mention. Then it overplays the Tories' plans for the NHS. We can all be concerned by creeping privatisation, but no one but a doe-eyed dimwit would suggest that the Tories have ever proposed its abolition, or even attempted abolition by stealth. It's good politics to fight the opposition - not some imaginary version of it. And finally we get to the increasingly common Corbynist zinger. The 'next big economic crisis', which would supposedly allow the Tories to destroy the NHS, may otherwise allow a (non-Tory-lite) 'progressive' Labour party to win an election. May. But there's a truly ugly, nasty cynicism underlying this, the logic of which is this: if the voters, including working class and socially vulnerable ones, suffer enough privations and desperate poverty, their false consciousness will be stripped away and they'll see their true salvation in the bearded one and his Stalinist besties. Think about that. The Corbynist logic is that it's best for people to suffer extreme hardship so that they are forced to vote Labour. If you don't mind, I think the majority of distinctly non-Coprbynist Labour supporters would prefer to win by appealing to as wide a segment of the electorate as possible with policies they can get behind. We'd prefer not to see an increase suffering as a means for cynical electoral gain. So much for Corbynist "principles". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 An alternative viewpoint - in the interest of balance you understand http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/self-appointed-moderates-delusional.html A great example of a capitalist, going under the guise of a socialist, using his blog generate some extra income. Hats off to him. #anotherangryvoiceusinghisvoicetomakesomeextracashontheside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 A great example of a capitalist, going under the guise of a socialist, using his blog generate some extra income. Hats off to him. #anotherangryvoiceusinghisvoicetomakesomeextracashontheside Yeah because socialists don't need to eat too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 (edited) Yeah because socialists don't need to eat too He's an English tutor and bearing in mind how much the teachers bang on about how long they work, I am surprised he has the time for it to be honest (Especially with two kids as well). Anyway, let's hope he's a good socialist and is declaring this extra income for tax purposes And let's hope he's a good teacher who doesn't impose his views on his pupils. Edited 15 January, 2016 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 He's an English tutor Interesting. Didn't realise that. What school/college ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 An alternative viewpoint - in the interest of balance you understand http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/self-appointed-moderates-delusional.html Utter drivel from the start and then I gave up reading when it said Corbyn has "a massive groundswell of public support", utter fantasy. Just rent a quote nonsense up to that point so I'll assume the rest carried in the same fashion. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 Utter drivel from the start and then I gave up reading when it said Corbyn has "a massive groundswell of public support", utter fantasy. Just rent a quote nonsense up to that point so I'll assume the rest carried in the same fashion. Thanks for posting. Oh it's an act of charity from me. I'm sure you all stand round in virtual self-congratulatory circles having mutual w*nkathons about Jezza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 Oh it's an act of charity from me. I'm sure you all stand round in virtual self-congratulatory circles having mutual w*nkathons about Jezza. Fact is he will never ever be prime minister and no amount of hand wringing and biased blogs will change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 Fact is he will never ever be prime minister and no amount of hand wringing and biased blogs will change that. You don't know that for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 You don't know that for sure. OK if you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 You don't know that for sure. Really, we do. He will never be Prime Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 I'm happy to put a charitable bet on it if you like? Name your price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 Oh it's an act of charity from me. I'm sure you all stand round in virtual self-congratulatory circles having mutual w*nkathons about Jezza. You do realise what you posted up was a self congratulatory wa nkathon about Jeremy, right? He's got "overwhelming public support" despite the howwible old mainstream media and everything. Of course he has. Overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 Really, we do. He will never be Prime Minister. I don't think he will, but you never know what is around the corner. If there is another, bigger financial collapse then I can see a swing to the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/14/beckett-report-labour-lost-2015-election-economy-immigrants-benefits Turns out that (no ****), Labour lost the election over the economy, immigration and welfare. Wasn't Jeremy a great choice! I tell you what, the Tories have done very well keeping their powder dry in terms of holding off from attacking Corbyn in order to make sure he remains leader for as long as possible. If the Corbynites are unhappy with how he's being portrayed in the media now then they'll be in for a hell of shock if and when Corbyn is still Labour leader in the run-up to 2020. Agree with all of this. Corbyn was the best thing to happen to the Tories possibly ever. If they play their cards right then they could take labour out of commission for ages. Economy, immigration and welfare were the weak points and they have regressed massively on these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 I'm happy to put a charitable bet on it if you like? Name your price. I have never said I thought he would be prime minister - you should learn to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 I have never said I thought he would be prime minister - you should learn to read. Well then I don't know for sure that saints won't sign Messi this window. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 He's an English tutor and bearing in mind how much the teachers bang on about how long they work, I am surprised he has the time for it to be honest (Especially with two kids as well). Anyway, let's hope he's a good socialist and is declaring this extra income for tax purposes And let's hope he's a good teacher who doesn't impose his views on his pupils. I hope he does. They won't get any stimulating opinions from mainstream media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 I'm happy to put a charitable bet on it if you like? Name your price. If you're so 100% confident, I'll give £10 to the NSPCC, and if he's Prime Minister you give £1000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 Well then I don't know for sure that saints won't sign Messi this window. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen though. Exactly, when he's old and ****e he might fancy a couple of seasons in the Premier League so you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 (edited) Overwhelming public support. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-perceived-as-increasingly-incompetent-says-poll-a6709641.html Overwhelming public support. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/01/how-jeremy-corbyns-labour-faring-elections-so-far Overwhelming public support. http://gu.com/p/4f8pk?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Overwhelming public support. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/10/28/camerons-rating-down-corbyns-down-more/ Overwhelming public support. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12087246/Labour-voters-are-losing-faith-in-Jeremy-Corbyn.html Overwhelming public support. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/support-for-jeremy-corbyn-slumps-after-he-opposes-airstrikes-a3139486.html The "massive groundswell of public support" really is quite overwhelming. It's now really clear why the Tories and the evil right wing press are, like, really scared of him and stuff. Edited 15 January, 2016 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 (edited) The Corbynistas need to understand this simple fact . To gain a majority they need to win Tory seats . Racking up votes and increasing support in Islington & other leftie enclaves won't win them 1 extra seat , well maybe Brighton Pavilon , but thats it . They do remind me of the famous Michael Foot story , he refused to believe opinion polls because everywhere he went he was mobbed, praised & cheered to the rafters . Jezza has engaged thousands of people , but NONE of them voted Tory at the last election . Edited 15 January, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 The Corbynistas need to understand this simple fact . To gain a majority they need to win Tory seats . Racking up votes and increasing support in Islington & other leftie enclaves won't win them 1 extra seat , well maybe Brighton Pavilon , but thats it . They do remind me of the famous Michael Foot story , he refused to believe opinion polls because everywhere he went he was mobbed, praised & cheered to the rafters . Jezza has engaged thousands of people , but NONE of them voted Tory at the last election . We dont agree on much, but one thing we both know is that the Corbynistas have absolutely no interest whatsoever in actually winning an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 If you're so 100% confident, I'll give £10 to the NSPCC, and if he's Prime Minister you give £1000? That's ridiculous. Match the bets surely? I'm happy to bet a tenner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
so22saint Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 I'm happy to put a charitable bet on it if you like? Name your price. I'll put up a grand of my own money that Islington Stalin won't become PM. Name your charity for the odd chance that he gets in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 15 January, 2016 Share Posted 15 January, 2016 I'll put up a grand of my own money that Islington Stalin won't become PM. Name your charity for the odd chance that he gets in... Err, I think Hypo would bet on the same outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now