Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Nuts said:
Except Peterborough disproves this.

Where’s the ‘nuttery and obession’?

Give specifics, rather than hollow cliches.
Click to expand...



I called it last week - 9th June if you want to check.

The Peterborough result just proves that Mahmood was up to his usual tricks again.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk...ection-being-investigated-by-police-1-8964103

Or, if you prefer, yet another example of Corbyn's utter nuttrey allowing Mahmood anywhere near Peterborugh and the Labour candidate during the by election.
 
Red Dreams said:
You don't get it do you?

The Right wing Government of Israel have forgotten their own history.
Just look at how they are treating the Palestinians?

Israel has a right to exist as a state. The Palestinians deserve to have their state too.

No matter who represents the Palestinians, the Israeli government has to sit down with them to get to a solution. Unfortunately there is no honest broker in the WH.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. The Palestinians don't seem particularly willing to talk (see Abbas's comments recently) and Israel will be unreceptive as long as Netanyahu's in charge. Can't see either side coming to the table any time soon sadly.
 
Nuts said:
Thanks for that. Lost my Dad 6 months ago after the NHS tried all they could - in the face of horrific cuts - so today’s a difficult one, yes.
Click to expand...


And same ' Chin Up ' from me as well.

Mrs FBR and myself have both had cancer the past few years and, hopefully, are now both currently cancer-free although we both know it will be back

But thanks to the NHS and the French equivalent, we have a couple of years yet and which is why we're now in France trying to and enjoying whatever time we have left before we have to cross over to the other side.

As someone said earlier, the front line of the NHS is unbelievably good - just too many back office and administrators who mess it up and give the impression that the NHS is on its knees when in reality although it's far from perfect, it's still world class and something to be admired and supported 101%.
 
Full bodied red said:
I called it last week - 9th June if you want to check.

The Peterborough result just proves that Mahmood was up to his usual tricks again.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk...ection-being-investigated-by-police-1-8964103

Or, if you prefer, yet another example of Corbyn's utter nuttrey allowing Mahmood anywhere near Peterborugh and the Labour candidate during the by election.
Click to expand...
So the evidence of any wrongdoing amounts to a social media post of gloating and someone who's done wrong before being seen at a place where he was meant to be?
Seems conclusive to me...or maybe not.
 
Well....Let's put it this way....

There were 13,600 applications for Postal Votes, of which 9,900 were actually returned and counted.

Of those 9,900, 400 ( an unusually high percentage, it would appear ) were rejected as invalid - names / addresses / signatures did not match with Council records. So 9.500 Postal Votes were included in determining the result and 33,900 votes were recorded at Polling Stations.

And therefore 1 in 4 votes were Postal Votes....And are we seriously to believe that 25% of the people in Peterborough who voted were unable to get to a Polling Station that day because of sickness, health, away on holiday, away working, etc....The national average at the 2017 GE was about 12% Postal Votes.

The Polls the day before the election indicated Brexit Party about 26% and was about 29% in the result - an error of about 3%, an almost normal diference

The same Polls the day before the election indicated Labour about 20% and was about 31% in the result - an error of about 10%, absolutely not a normal difference.

In the Referendum, Peterborough voted 70% Leave but then apparently elect a staunch Remainer Labour MP to replace a disgraced Remainer Labour MP who 26,000 people signed a petition to have disqualified and a By Election to be held to replace her.

At the Euro Elections, the week before, the Brexit Party received approx 16,000 votes in Peterborough, but a fortnight later only approx. 10,000 votes.

And all this in the same same city where Mahmood has already been convicted of and served time in jail for fraud of Postal Votes.


So no actual evidence yet - just mountains of circumstancial evidence to be going on with.

But don't hold your breath - the result will not be investigated by the Electoral Commission because Electoral Fraud doesn't happen in the UK, only in Russia or Deepest Africa....And, I believe, none of this has been reported on the BBC although I don't actually see the BBC every day, of course.
 
Full bodied red said:
Well....Let's put it this way....

There were 13,600 applications for Postal Votes, of which 9,900 were actually returned and counted.

Of those 9,900, 400 ( an unusually high percentage, it would appear ) were rejected as invalid - names / addresses / signatures did not match with Council records. So 9.500 Postal Votes were included in determining the result and 33,900 votes were recorded at Polling Stations.

And therefore 1 in 4 votes were Postal Votes....And are we seriously to believe that 25% of the people in Peterborough who voted were unable to get to a Polling Station that day because of sickness, health, away on holiday, away working, etc....The national average at the 2017 GE was about 12% Postal Votes.

The Polls the day before the election indicated Brexit Party about 26% and was about 29% in the result - an error of about 3%, an almost normal diference

The same Polls the day before the election indicated Labour about 20% and was about 31% in the result - an error of about 10%, absolutely not a normal difference.

In the Referendum, Peterborough voted 70% Leave but then apparently elect a staunch Remainer Labour MP to replace a disgraced Remainer Labour MP who 26,000 people signed a petition to have disqualified and a By Election to be held to replace her.

At the Euro Elections, the week before, the Brexit Party received approx 16,000 votes in Peterborough, but a fortnight later only approx. 10,000 votes.

And all this in the same same city where Mahmood has already been convicted of and served time in jail for fraud of Postal Votes.


So no actual evidence yet - just mountains of circumstancial evidence to be going on with.

But don't hold your breath - the result will not be investigated by the Electoral Commission because Electoral Fraud doesn't happen in the UK, only in Russia or Deepest Africa....And, I believe, none of this has been reported on the BBC although I don't actually see the BBC every day, of course.
Click to expand...
So no actual tangible evidence then right? Just people with theories right?
 
JohnnyKills said:
Agree with this. The Palestinians don't seem particularly willing to talk (see Abbas's comments recently) and Israel will be unreceptive as long as Netanyahu's in charge. Can't see either side coming to the table any time soon sadly.
Click to expand...

When I was in college decades ago, the PLO at the time were about to recognize the Israeli state. But it never happened.
problem is always pre-conditions.
Both sides need to meet with a view to actually bring about peace. But there needs to be a neutral broker.
But the Palestinians do not trust the US anymore. Why should they.
But I do see a Bernie presidency actually getting peace accomplished.
 
711 said:
He spelled out 'no actual evidence' himself, did you miss that? What do you think yourself? I don't know, but it is intriguing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is interesting, some peculiar patterns of voting.
But alas, we are seeing this more and more, a sure fire Victor doesn't get the win and calls foul.
 
Full bodied red said:
Are we seriously to believe that 25% of the people in Peterborough who voted were unable to get to a Polling Station that day because of sickness, health, away on holiday, away working, etc.....
Click to expand...
Some vote by post for convenience, not necessarily because they unable to vote in person for some reason. I do, as I don't want to miss my vote by accident. Also to avoid queues, which are long at my polling station.
 
Red Dreams said:
When I was in college decades ago, the PLO at the time were about to recognize the Israeli state. But it never happened.
problem is always pre-conditions.
Both sides need to meet with a view to actually bring about peace. But there needs to be a neutral broker.
But the Palestinians do not trust the US anymore. Why should they.
But I do see a Bernie presidency actually getting peace accomplished.
Click to expand...
I don't personally think Bernie would get elected (although it would be a good thing for the US) and even if he were elected, he'd face a mammoth task getting both sides to the table.

On the one hand you've got Netanyahu naming the uber-controversial Golan settlement after Trump, which shows how much of a shit he gives about building bridges and softening Israel's stance.

On the other hand there's still tension between Hamas and Fatah, and both sides continue to issue blood-curdling threats towards Israel (even Mahmoud Abbas, who I'd hoped would be a voice of reason in this mess).

Then you've got the practical problem of what a two-state solution would look like. You'd assume there would be a UN-patrolled demilitarised zone between the two countries. But what about Jerusalem? How do you divide that up? Either both sides have access (in which case it would doubtless become a focus for violence and extremism) or neither does. And neither side is going to consider abandoning its holiest site.

Let's hope that, in the future, more moderate actors take power and demographic changes make the two sides want to seek a solution. I can't see it any time soon, though.
 
JohnnyKills said:
I don't personally think Bernie would get elected (although it would be a good thing for the US) and even if he were elected, he'd face a mammoth task getting both sides to the table.

On the one hand you've got Netanyahu naming the uber-controversial Golan settlement after Trump, which shows how much of a shit he gives about building bridges and softening Israel's stance.

On the other hand there's still tension between Hamas and Fatah, and both sides continue to issue blood-curdling threats towards Israel (even Mahmoud Abbas, who I'd hoped would be a voice of reason in this mess).

Then you've got the practical problem of what a two-state solution would look like. You'd assume there would be a UN-patrolled demilitarised zone between the two countries. But what about Jerusalem? How do you divide that up? Either both sides have access (in which case it would doubtless become a focus for violence and extremism) or neither does. And neither side is going to consider abandoning its holiest site.

Let's hope that, in the future, more moderate actors take power and demographic changes make the two sides want to seek a solution. I can't see it any time soon, though.
Click to expand...
tend to agree... there would need to be a softening of some of the rethoric and pre conditions from some of the Palestinians (seems unlikely) .... and I suspect Israel would be happy to wait out bernie (and I agree I think he wont be elected) as he will be 79 if he gets elected and will no doubt have a stacked domestic agenda (and a lot of push back from republicans over that) - seems to me it would be very unlikely to be something bernie could solve in two terms and lets be honest with his age and the fact he will probably energise a massive republican backlash in 2024 with his domestic policies a second term would be far from guaranteed
 
sun_tzu said:
tend to agree... there would need to be a softening of some of the rethoric and pre conditions from some of the Palestinians (seems unlikely) .... and I suspect Israel would be happy to wait out bernie (and I agree I think he wont be elected) as he will be 79 if he gets elected and will no doubt have a stacked domestic agenda (and a lot of push back from republicans over that) - seems to me it would be very unlikely to be something bernie could solve in two terms and lets be honest with his age and the fact he will probably energise a massive republican backlash in 2024 with his domestic policies a second term would be far from guaranteed
Click to expand...
Yep, the best hope for Bernie supporters is that a more conservative Democratic candidate selects him (or one of the younger brigade such as AOC) as their running mate. American voters still fear the red menace and both Republicans and Democrats will bash him endlessly about his age - and that will stick.

Ultimately, we probably need centrist figures in both Downing Street and the White House to bring about peace. The Israelis are going to turn their backs on the UK if Corbyn ever comes to power - and rightly so, given his rhetoric towards them. On the other side, someone like Trump will never have a chance of convincing Fatah, let alone Hamas, that they're an honest actor.
 
No American president or British PM can solve the conflict peacefully, to the satisfaction of both sides. It would be quite refreshing to have someone willing to acknowledge this, and act accordingly.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
How does this look?
Click to expand...

No pushes for grandiose peace plans or deals of the century which may leave things in a worse state. A more realistic appraisal of the significance of the conflict in regional terms and where US/British interests lie. Management of the conflict (to the degree it’s possible) to minimize the violence and extremism it produces.

That’s not to say the conflict can or should be largely ignored. But rather than engaging it in terms of the respective leaderships and a negotiating balance sheet which can never satisfy either side, I think outside powers should do more to encourage joint Arab-Jewish initiatives on the ground in the region and elsewhere. For me mutual recognition of the conflicting narratives and history is key to moving things along in any kind of positive direction, and if outside powers can play a role in encouraging that then they should.

If all this sounds very limited and unambitious, then yes, that’s the point.
 
Full bodied red said:
At the Euro Elections, the week before, the Brexit Party received approx 16,000 votes in Peterborough, but a fortnight later only approx. 10,000 votes.
Click to expand...

Your mistake here is that you're comparing figures from Peterborough as an administrative area within the East of England European parliamentary constituency with an electorate of about 121,000, with Peterborough as a UK parliamentary constituency which has an electorate of around 70,000.

There's no disappearing Leavers or appearing Remainers; in the EU election The Brexit Party got 16,000 votes out of 120,000 (13%), in the by-election they got 9800 votes of out 70,000 (also 13%). If you look at the split between the Brexit-y parties and Remain-y parties in the by-election, 51% backed clear Leave parties and 15% backed clear Remain parties. Adding in Labour and assuming that, as per the national average, roughly 2/3 of Labour voters are Remainers and 1/3 Leavers, the Leave vote is more like 61% and Remain vote at around 36%. Compare these figures to the 2016 Referendum for the area; 60.9% Leave vs. 39.1% Remain

Again, when you compare the 2017 and 2019 election results for Peterborough there's a clear trend. The LD and Green Party gains correspond almost exactly to the 2/3rd of Labour's lost voters we'd expect to be Remainers (+10% vs -11%). The Brexit Party gains correspond almost exactly the to 1/3 of Labour's lost voters we'd expect to be Leavers + the lost Tory vote (+29% vs. -27% (21% Tory losses, 6% Labour losses)). The trend being that Labour loses support to the Remain and Leaves sides at a 2:1 ratio (as we'd expect) whilst the Tories lose support almost solely to the Brexit Party (again, as we'd expect).

From 2017 -> 2019
Labour - 48% -> 31% (-17%)
TBP - 0% -> 29% (+29%)
Tory - 46% -> 21% (-21%)
LD - 3% -> 12% (+9%)
GP - 2% -> 3% (+1%)

Labour won because they were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote onside than the Tories were and because only around a 1/3 of the votes they lost went to a party who had a chance of beating them.
 
JohnnyKills said:
Yep, the best hope for Bernie supporters is that a more conservative Democratic candidate selects him (or one of the younger brigade such as AOC) as their running mate. American voters still fear the red menace and both Republicans and Democrats will bash him endlessly about his age - and that will stick.

Ultimately, we probably need centrist figures in both Downing Street and the White House to bring about peace. The Israelis are going to turn their backs on the UK if Corbyn ever comes to power - and rightly so, given his rhetoric towards them. On the other side, someone like Trump will never have a chance of convincing Fatah, let alone Hamas, that they're an honest actor.
Click to expand...
I don't think they can select AOC?
I believe there is a minimum age requirement for president (35 years old)
I assume this also applies to the v.p. incase they have to take over as well
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Your mistake here is that you're comparing figures from Peterborough as an administrative area within the East of England European parliamentary constituency with an electorate of about 121,000, with Peterborough as a UK parliamentary constituency which has an electorate of around 70,000.

There's no disappearing Leavers or appearing Remainers; in the EU election The Brexit Party got 16,000 votes out of 120,000 (13%), in the by-election they got 9800 votes of out 70,000 (also 13%). If you look at the split between the Brexit-y parties and Remain-y parties in the by-election, 51% backed clear Leave parties and 15% backed clear Remain parties. Adding in Labour and assuming that, as per the national average, roughly 2/3 of Labour voters are Remainers and 1/3 Leavers, the Leave vote is more like 61% and Remain vote at around 36%. Compare these figures to the 2016 Referendum for the area; 60.9% Leave vs. 39.1% Remain

Again, when you compare the 2017 and 2019 election results for Peterborough there's a clear trend. The LD and Green Party gains correspond almost exactly to the 2/3rd of Labour's lost voters we'd expect to be Remainers (+10% vs -11%). The Brexit Party gains correspond almost exactly the to 1/3 of Labour's lost voters we'd expect to be Leavers + the lost Tory vote (+29% vs. -27% (21% Tory losses, 6% Labour losses)). The trend being that Labour loses support to the Remain and Leaves sides at a 2:1 ratio (as we'd expect) whilst the Tories lose support almost solely to the Brexit Party (again, as we'd expect).

From 2017 -> 2019
Labour - 48% -> 31% (-17%)
TBP - 0% -> 29% (+29%)
Tory - 46% -> 21% (-21%)
LD - 3% -> 12% (+9%)
GP - 2% -> 3% (+1%)

Labour won because they were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote onside than the Tories were and because only around a 1/3 of the votes they lost went to a party who had a chance of beating them.
Click to expand...
Thats pretty much how I read the figures as well
looks like labour will have a huge fight internally about switching to backing remain (or at least a 2nd referendum) whilst the conservatives will be (at least in perception if not in fact) moving behind a harder brexit

Will be interesting to see the early polling if boris wins - he might just decide he does not want to make the same mistake as may and his time to call a GE is as soon as he has the initial bounce to try and change the westminister math in his favor
 
JohnnyKills said:
Yep, the best hope for Bernie supporters is that a more conservative Democratic candidate selects him (or one of the younger brigade such as AOC) as their running mate. American voters still fear the red menace and both Republicans and Democrats will bash him endlessly about his age - and that will stick.

Ultimately, we probably need centrist figures in both Downing Street and the White House to bring about peace. The Israelis are going to turn their backs on the UK if Corbyn ever comes to power - and rightly so, given his rhetoric towards them. On the other side, someone like Trump will never have a chance of convincing Fatah, let alone Hamas, that they're an honest actor.
Click to expand...
It's plainly obvious that a one state solution, with both sides being equal citizens under a single democratic state with the right to return for Palestinian refugees is what should be done. Anything else is just an acceptance of ethnic cleaning as far as I'm concerned.
 
JEFF...

I don't disagree with your numbers and analysis....But a bit like my own summary, there's no hard evidence for your own belief that

Labour won because they were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote onside than the Tories were and because only around a 1/3 of the votes they lost went to a party who had a chance of beating them.

because nobody has access to and can analyse the individual voting patterns of the 40,000 people who did vote - how they voted and why.

The great unknown is quite how Labour were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote as you suggest if, indeed, that's what happened and the total Labour vote was not manipulated by Postal Votes as many believe. I notice that Labour says that Mahmood was not involved in the By Election, yet he was seen regularly with Forbes in the run up to the election and, even, photographed withCorbyn


https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/claims-of-peterborough-fraud-unearthed-across-social-media/


Whatever, latest ITV news, an hour or so ago -

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/201...terborough-by-election-investigated-by-police

But as I said yesterday, nothing will happen and the result won't be voided because ( 1 ) The Electoral Commission don't want to discover or be associated with Electoral Fraud in the UK and ( 2 ) The Government won't insist on an investigation because the Tory share of the vote will merely highlight how much The Tories have pissed off their own and swing voters by their incomptence the past six or seven years - particularly relating to Brexit.









 
Full bodied red said:
JEFF...

I don't disagree with your numbers and analysis....But a bit like my own summary, there's no hard evidence for your own belief that

Labour won because they were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote onside than the Tories were and because only around a 1/3 of the votes they lost went to a party who had a chance of beating them.

because nobody has access to and can analyse the individual voting patterns of the 40,000 people who did vote - how they voted and why.

The great unknown is quite how Labour were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote as you suggest if, indeed, that's what happened and the total Labour vote was not manipulated by Postal Votes as many believe. I notice that Labour says that Mahmood was not involved in the By Election, yet he was seen regularly with Forbes in the run up to the election and, even, photographed withCorbyn


https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/claims-of-peterborough-fraud-unearthed-across-social-media/


Whatever, latest ITV news, an hour or so ago -

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/201...terborough-by-election-investigated-by-police

But as I said yesterday, nothing will happen and the result won't be voided because ( 1 ) The Electoral Commission don't want to discover or be associated with Electoral Fraud in the UK and ( 2 ) The Government won't insist on an investigation because the Tory share of the vote will merely highlight how much The Tories have pissed off their own and swing voters by their incomptence the past six or seven years - particularly relating to Brexit.
Click to expand...

You're sourcing "Unity News Network", which seems to be mainly set up to support brexit and features such hard hitting news as:
SHOCK REPORTS that Nigel Farage has been BANNED from meeting President TRUMP!
Nicola Sturgeon now PLOTTING with Corbyn, Soubry, Cable & others to SABOTAGE Brexit!


 
sun_tzu said:
c'mon Saj... get in line behind me... its clearly going to be "blarite scum" first
Click to expand...
It is a bit mad that a politician can say this to a journalist and there be no follow up question.
 
Last edited:
Shamwow said:
You're sourcing "Unity News Network", which seems to be mainly set up to support brexit and features such hard hitting news as:
Click to expand...


No....Not sourcing Unity Network News, never heard of it before today.

I did a Google search for a photo of Mahmood with Corbyn in the run up to the election as is reported to have happened / to exist because it wasn't in the mainstream media and that site was the first that I found with a clear, indisputable picture that he did, indeed, spend time with Corbyn and Forbes despite what is claimed.

Sorry to have built up your hopes....
 
sun_tzu said:
I don't think they can select AOC?
I believe there is a minimum age requirement for president (35 years old)
I assume this also applies to the v.p. incase they have to take over as well
Click to expand...
Is that true? Wow, didn't know that.
 
OH shit this goes further!

FB_IMG_1560152355378.jpg


 
Last edited:
JohnnyKills said:
Surprised he's lasted so long tbh.

Why don't all these Corbyn-haters follow Chuka Umunna's lead and join the Lib Dems? It's not like they're going to get the party back anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Because he thinks he'll be selected as the next labour leader. Although he's damaging his own cause in some respects.

If we get to a public gote he should be put in charge of remain so he can't blame anyone else.
 
So coming out to say Labour should back a new vote automatically makes you a Corbyn hater?
 
Watson will never be Labour leader. I agree with him on Brexit, and I think most Corbyn supporters do too, but a lot of the ire he gets is well deserved. The same membership that voted Corbyn in voted Watson in and in return he's treated them with nothing but contempt, I don't blame people for wanting rid of him.

Having said that, I see no value in disagreeing with everything he says on principle, as some of the most myopic Corbyn supporters seem to do. Given his past conduct I can understand why many think that his outspokenness on Brexit is another example of him using an issue as vehicle to attack Corbyn and promote himself, but that doesn't mean his view is wrong. There are bigger fish to fry than getting rid of Tom Watson, and the failure of a minority of Labour members to recognise that reflects very poorly on them.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Watson will never be Labour leader. I agree with him on Brexit, and I think most Corbyn supporters do too, but a lot of the ire he gets is well deserved. The same membership that voted Corbyn in voted Watson in and in return he's treated them with nothing but contempt, I don't blame people for wanting rid of him.

Having said that, I see no value in disagreeing with everything he says on principle, as some of the most myopic Corbyn supporters seem to do. Given his past conduct I can understand why many think that his outspokenness on Brexit is another example of him using an issue as vehicle to attack Corbyn and promote himself, but that doesn't mean his view is wrong. There are bigger fish to fry than getting rid of Tom Watson, and the failure of a minority of Labour members to recognise that reflects very poorly on them.
Click to expand...
They're still playing student politics instead of addressing the fact that Watson is right on Brexit and Corbyn is very wrong. Still, it's not like Brexit matters or anything.
 
711 said:
They're still playing student politics instead of addressing the fact that Watson is right on Brexit and Corbyn is very wrong. Still, it's not like Brexit matters or anything.
Click to expand...

He was also the one who demanded a broad church strategy of Labour and that they shouldn't ignore their traditional voters.

All he does is protest strategically to boost his profile no matter the contradiction. Once again pops up to protest when parliament is basically shut down and Labour couldn't force a people's vote even if they wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.