Current Affairs The Labour Party

[orly]

Oh dear. Off topic with the Martinez reference, yet again. But that is standard practice for you when you are caught out. Go to the Martinez thread for that.

It was what you said and you know it and you know it. You respond with this, 'It's not a hunch - it was based on historical data' to me. Based on me saying to another poster that it was a 'hunch' that Corbyn not getting elected would lead to 14 years of Tory rule. You said it was based on 'historical data'. Not quite correct as Harold Wilson lost an election and it didn't result in 14 years of Tory rule.

You decided to shift the goalpost by mentioning the BBC. The state controlling the BBC is not hard to understand, even for you. Then on to Martinez, which is your usual response when I have challenged you on what you have wrote. If you don't like it when someone shows that what you said, was not correct based on 'historical data' then don't respond to anything I say. It is quite simple, even for you.

I've quite literally shown you in the post where that is a total lie.

It's pretty simple mate, even for you.

 

[orly]

Think you are missing my point. Corbyn could not get a majority with all the other parties combined.

Its not a point of principle, (unfortunately), its purely a mechanism to get a rubber stamp allowing someone, anyone, to talk to the EU.

My understanding is that if the HOC votes against a QS, then yet another GE is immediately called. We simply do not have the time for that to happen.

I disagree with that entirely mate.

The timeline is there, sure, but a lame duck government propped up by a lamentable DUP is not going to produce a quality environment for negotiating with the EU. It also further undermines the PM (if that were possible) and huge swathes of her shy vote will see that alignment with the DUP and run a mile.

Corbyn can't get a majority no, but what he can do is rely on a lot of seriously peed off Tory centre-leaners who will be determined so the back of May et al. For me, we should go to the polls again.

 

[roydo]

I disagree with that entirely mate.

You can disagree all you like, but it is true.

Someone has to meet with the EU in a week or so. To do that, we have to have a PM with a QS in their pocket. Otherwise, you and me pitching up would have the same legal entity as May, Corbyn, Bill and Ben.

I aint a fan of it, or of May, but in these febrile times, sometimes pure political reality needs to be dealt with.

What happens after that, heaven only knows, but I cant see the Tories lasting long. But at least the opening bars of Brexit will have been played out.

 

[hullefc]

I've quite literally shown you in the post where that is a total lie.

It's pretty simple mate, even for you.

Oh dear. No usual reference to Martinez. Well done an improvement. You decided to answer my response to a poster.

A poster wrote this, "If he loses again then that's 14 years of a conservative government and that is helping who exactly". In my post this is what I wrote, "If he loses again then 14 years of Tory rule'. There is no way of knowing that, it is a hunch as is my 'crash below 200'.

You then wrote, "It's not a hunch - it was based on historical data". I pointed out that historical data doesn't show that because Harold Wilson lost an election and it did not lead to 14 years of Tory rule.

It really is quite simple to follow, even for you, that you were wrong with your 'historical data' reference.

 

[Lapeno77]

Anybody see Corbyn's age becoming a factor soon. He's 68 now, meaning if the current Parliament goes the full term, he would be the oldest PM to enter number 10, if he won.

 

[Billy Dean]

You can disagree all you like, but it is true.

Someone has to meet with the EU in a week or so. .

No. EU has said it can be postponed

 

[orly]

Oh dear. No usual reference to Martinez. Well done an improvement. You decided to answer my response to a poster.

A poster wrote this, "If he loses again then that's 14 years of a conservative government and that is helping who exactly". In my post this is what I wrote, "If he loses again then 14 years of Tory rule'. There is no way of knowing that, it is a hunch as is my 'crash below 200'.

You then wrote, "It's not a hunch - it was based on historical data". I pointed out that historical data doesn't show that because Harold Wilson lost an election and it did not lead to 14 years of Tory rule.

It really is quite simple to follow, even for you, that you were wrong with your 'historical data' reference.

Again, @The binman chronicles clarified exactly what he meant.

But then I wrote originally of course (you seem to keep leaving this out of replies, very odd)

Because that was the baseline from which they gained a platform to win the next time out - so 1992 - 1997.

When Labour last got 209, it took them 14 years. It really isn't complicated, but you see about five words a post and start posting your tripe, every time.

There's the historical data use, by the way, but carry on with your Harold Wilson preoccupation.

You're really angry and struggling here mate, and that's fine. No worries. Will leave you to this and your weird views on the BBC and how the people of Hull love Martinez's football - did you do any polling on this by the way?

 

[roydo]

Anybody see Corbyn's age becoming a factor soon. He's 68 now, meaning if the current Parliament goes the full term, he would be the oldest PM to enter number 10, if he won.

Nah. He seemed full of vim and vigour to me.

And the chances of this Parliament lasting 5 years? Really?

 

[roydo]

No. EU has said it can be postponed

Out of the kindness of their hearts, I am sure.

The 2 year clock is set. That cant be postponed.

Every week that is delayed, that plays directly into their hands, not ours.

All the light and noise in Westminster is all good fun and that. But the serious work, the boring, mind numbingly tedious and detailed stuff has to crack on.

We have a chance to get that in motion. That is all that really matters in this election.

 

[orly]

Out of the kindness of their hearts, I am sure.

The 2 year clock is set. That cant be postponed.

Every week that is delayed, that plays directly into their hands, not ours.

All the light and noise in Westminster is all good fun and that. But the serious work, the boring, mind numbingly tedious and detailed stuff has to crack on.

We have a chance to get that in motion. That is all that really matters in this election.

But a lot of the yards for that will be put in by PPS types anyway.

All well and good making short-term compromises, but the make-up of Government is critical.

 

[roydo]

But a lot of the yards for that will be put in by PPS types anyway.

All well and good making short-term compromises, but the make-up of Government is critical.

Oh of course.

All I am saying is that we have to get cracking on it. This unholy alliance allows that.

 

[orly]

Oh of course.

All I am saying is that we have to get cracking on it. This unholy alliance allows that.

But the processes of Government work can work without a Parliament - we're seeing that in Ireland at the moment. The EU is negotiating with Britain, rather than the Tory / Tory-DUP axis of evil.

Dunno really mate, I think for the sake of another six weeks polling (or quicker) the country shouldn't sell its soul.

 

[roydo]

But the processes of Government work can work without a Parliament - we're seeing that in Ireland at the moment. The EU is negotiating with Britain, rather than the Tory / Tory-DUP axis of evil.

Dunno really mate, I think for the sake of another six weeks polling (or quicker) the country shouldn't sell its soul.

The process of Government can, indeed.

But the UK Government cant negotiate with the EU if we havnt got one.

 

[hullefc]

Again, @The binman chronicles clarified exactly what he meant.

But then I wrote originally of course (you seem to keep leaving this out of replies, very odd)



There's the historical data use, by the way, but carry on with your Harold Wilson preoccupation.

You're really angry and struggling here mate, and that's fine. No worries.

Because I responded before you edited your post. As you will see from when I first replied.

If you use historical data to back up a point make sure it is correct. Harold Wilson losing an election didn't result in 14 years of Tory. Not a preoccupation but 'historical data' which you seem keen to use.

One piece of historical data shows a Labour leader losing an election results in 14 years of Tory rule. Another piece of historical data shows that a Labour leader losing an election does not lead to 14 years of Tory rule. I know you are struggling with this but don't let it get to you and make you angry. I apologise for showing that you were wrong and it made you so annoyed that you had to go off topic.

Corbyn not getting elected at next election may or may not lead to 14 years of Tory rule. Corbyn getting elected may or may not lead to 14 years of Labour rule. What Corbyn has done is energised the political process in this country - and historical data will show that to be a fact.

 

[orly]

Because I responded before you edited your post. As you will see from when I first replied.

If you use historical data to back up a point make sure it is correct. Harold Wilson losing an election didn't result in 14 years of Tory. Not a preoccupation but 'historical data' which you seem keen to use.

One piece of historical data shows a Labour leader losing an election results in 14 years of Tory rule. Another piece of historical data shows that a Labour leader losing an election does not lead to 14 years of Tory rule. I know you are struggling with this but don't let it get to you and make you angry. I apologise for showing that you were wrong and it made you so annoyed that you had to go off topic.

Corbyn not getting elected at next election may or may not lead to 14 years of Tory rule. Corbyn getting elected may or may not lead to 14 years of Labour rule. What Corbyn has done is energised the political process in this country - and historical data will show that to be a fact.

Try and read people's posts properly mate. You've missed the point again as you've been shown about five times.

Call down and have another look. Not complicated, you'll get there.