Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is Jeremy Corbyn a good leader of the Labour Party? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Deary me you must have been born in the shallow end of the gene pool.
    You have come charging into a debate to argue against a point no one made in order to vehemently defend the Tory party.

    I outright dismiss anything I disagree with? Are you serious, that's exactly what you do to anything remotely left wing. Get over yourself.

    For a start I'm in the centre of the Labour Party, probably about where Gordon Brown was and secondly you always throw out the 'left wing self..' Whenever you disagree so please step down off your high horse.

    Talk about scooting off topic. This is quite something, even for tsr.
    And I'm 'self righteous'? 😂
    Talk about patheticness, you're launching into personal attacks on a student forum, does that make you feel big and hard?

    Had you even the slightest bit of common sense and intuition you would read what I actually said. In fact you broadly agree with me, the English public did not want the SNP and any labour leader would have needed them.
    Unless you think David could have won a majority in England for which he'd need over 100 English seats. Which he clearly would not have done. Sorry if that personally offends you for some strange reason.

    The rise of the SNP made it virtually impossible labour could get a majority and would need the SNP. That would have happened under David Milliband as well as Ed.
    The Tories and the right wing newspapers would still have campaigned warning people about the SNP in government.
    Quite why you were so offended by that and upset and felt the need to throw a tantrum and hurl personal abuse is quite frankly hilarious.

    Then you made your brilliant 'if I had a drink for every time..' speech. So mature and insightful.

    You can't blame me for calling you a Tory stooge when you merely charge into a debate to defend the Tories despite the fact it had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate at hand.

    Get over yourself and grow up and please for your own sake stop acting the hard man on a student forum.

    Let's see if you can respond without using the term 'left wing righteousness'. Go on I dare you.

    Cheers.
    Christ, it's like talking to a brick wall.
    You've insulted me and cried like a wimp about personal attacks in the same post.
    You've accused me of raising a point no one made and then claimed we broadly agree on that point in the same post.
    You accuse me of throwing a tantrum and literally go on a big rant in the same post.
    You whinge about my 'left-wing' jibes and call me a Tory cheerleader in the same post.
    This is brilliant. I'm beginning to suspect you're infact a Tory stooge yourself, playing the persona of a bumbling left-wing clown to destroy the left's reputation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    I'm from the southwest where the tories turned the lib dem heartlands blue through their voracious campaigning about the possibility of the SNP. Literally driving around there were banners that if we voted lib dem we were voting the SNP in.

    I agree with you that it's a fact labour would have needed the SNP to form the government and also that the tories partly won at least some of their majority by fear-mongering about the SNP in power both in their campaign tactics and through the right wing media.

    I don't see what the issue is with the guy disagreeing with you.
    And yet Labour made gains directly against the Tories, which would implicitly be letting the SNP in.
    My issue is to the implication that Tory voters feared the SNP simply because the 'Tory media' told them to. There has to be an existing fear in the first place for a party to be able to 'scaremonger'. The SNP aren't cuddly kittens. It was the SNP's track record on public ultimatums, demands and Anglophobia coupled with Ed Miliband's perceived lack of leadership that made the public fear a coalition involving the SNP. Not because we were brainwashed into doing so by the Tories.
    David Miliband arguably would not have been in the same position in England, as a stronger more centre-left politican, so simply blaming the 'Tory media' for Ed's defeat is wrong.
    It's also ironic for bornblue to accuse me of Tory cheerleading when his number one reference source for his claims is the much derided Beckett 'whitewash' report.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    And yet Labour made gains directly against the Tories, which would implicitly be letting the SNP in.
    My issue is to the implication that Tory voters feared the SNP simply because the 'Tory media' told them to. There has to be an existing fear in the first place for a party to be able to 'scaremonger'. The SNP aren't cuddly kittens. It was the SNP's track record on public ultimatums, demands and Anglophobia coupled with Ed Miliband's perceived lack of leadership that made the public fear a coalition involving the SNP. Not because we were brainwashed into doing so by the Tories.
    David Miliband arguably would not have been in the same position in England, as a stronger more centre-left politican, so simply blaming the 'Tory media' for Ed's defeat is wrong.
    It's also ironic for bornblue to accuse me of Tory cheerleading when his number one reference source for his claims is the much derided Beckett 'whitewash' report.
    Ok agreed but Tory voters by nature aren't exactly going to love anything the snp do and I don't think that Tory voters are affected by right wing media bias because they're already on board and agree with it.

    I think the issue is that the Tories used it to affect voters on the fence or perhaps even lib dem voters as is the case in the southwest and as I backed up with their signs saying that if we voted lib dem we were voting for the Snp. This might be one of the key reasons why the Tory win was so marked and why the lib Dems lost so much.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Christ, it's like talking to a brick wall.
    You've insulted me and cried like a wimp about personal attacks in the same post.
    You've accused me of raising a point no one made and then claimed we broadly agree on that point in the same post.
    You accuse me of throwing a tantrum and literally go on a big rant in the same post.
    You whinge about my 'left-wing' jibes and call me a Tory cheerleader in the same post.
    This is brilliant. I'm beginning to suspect you're infact a Tory stooge yourself, playing the persona of a bumbling left-wing clown to destroy the left's reputation.
    Actually no I was responding to your double standards.
    You accuse me of dismissing anything I disagree with, it's exactly what you do, you frequently throw out 'left wing self...' whenever you disagree with someone to the left.

    I'm in the centre of the labour party, a Brownite if you would. You on the other hand judging by your bio are on the very right of the tory party, so if you're gonna go on about 'left wing' this and that when i'm fairly centrist/left of centre then be prepared to take it too.


    Just take a look at your contribution here and how you've spectacularly missed the point and instead sought to defend the tories.

    The English don't like the SNP, the tories played on that fear and dislike of the SNP as they are entitled to do. It's the same as how Labour play on the fear the public have over the tories and the NHS.

    I never said the tories could not campaign on the SNP, but just that's what they did and it was an effective tactic, especially in Lib-Dem/ Tory marginals. In fact the Beckett report found that fear of the SNP was a fairly big factor especially in those marginals.


    Back to the point of why David Miliband may have fared no better. David Miliband would not have stopped the SNP landlside. He too would have needed the SNP to form a majority government.
    Labour got around 230 seats in England and Wales. Now don't get me wrong, I like David Miliband and he's a good politician but if you think he could have won a majority in England and Wales alone you're barking mad.

    He still would have needed the SNP, the British public still would have feared the SNP and not wanted them in government and the tories would have campaigned to play on those fears as they did and are entitled to.


    Quite why you are so personally offended by that or feel the need to jump in to defend the tories when I was not even attacking them is perplexing.

    David M is a good politician but a 1997 Tony Blair he wasn't. He may have done a bit better than Ed but hardly much.

    I don't see how that's left wing self righteousness or whatever you're making it out to be.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    And yet Labour made gains directly against the Tories, which would implicitly be letting the SNP in.
    My issue is to the implication that Tory voters feared the SNP simply because the 'Tory media' told them to. There has to be an existing fear in the first place for a party to be able to 'scaremonger'. The SNP aren't cuddly kittens. It was the SNP's track record on public ultimatums, demands and Anglophobia coupled with Ed Miliband's perceived lack of leadership that made the public fear a coalition involving the SNP. Not because we were brainwashed into doing so by the Tories.
    David Miliband arguably would not have been in the same position in England, as a stronger more centre-left politican, so simply blaming the 'Tory media' for Ed's defeat is wrong.
    It's also ironic for bornblue to accuse me of Tory cheerleading when his number one reference source for his claims is the much derided Beckett 'whitewash' report.
    You're just making up my position now. The tories played on pre-exisitng fears as they are entitled to do.

    David Miliband would have still needed the SNP to form a government unless you believe he would have won another 106 seats in England and Wales than Ed did.
    If you think David Miliband would have done that then I would argue you are delusional. He would have done better than Ed in England, but 106 seats better? Not a chance.
    Why does that so personally offend you?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    In the eyes of the Conservative party he is the best since Michael Foot.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    OK, I get that. I understand your point.

    But is it your position that everyone's subjective opinion is "just as good" in moral terms?

    And if not, why can you not feel morally superior to a right winger?
    I don't believe in morality. I believe my views are more compassionate, yes but compassion does not equal morality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Actually no I was responding to your double standards.
    You accuse me of dismissing anything I disagree with, it's exactly what you do, you frequently throw out 'left wing self...' whenever you disagree with someone to the left.
    You seem to have a severe chronology issue. I've been more than willing to debate points. Left-wing jibes towards you only occurred afterwards out of exasperation of your out-of-hand dismissal of everything as somehow Tory cheerleading while at first refusing to debate the point. That's not one bit in the slightest a double standard.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm in the centre of the labour party, a Brownite if you would. You on the other hand judging by your bio are on the very right of the tory party, so if you're gonna go on about 'left wing' this and that when i'm fairly centrist/left of centre then be prepared to take it too.
    Be prepared to take what?
    It's pretty clear my implication is that you are, ironically, a fervent advocate of identity politics, not that you're a pinko socialist. It doesn't matter where you sit politically within the Labour party, you're clearly still a die-hard, what with the Beckett Report being your bible, and any point I raise being Tory cheerleading.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Just take a look at your contribution here and how you've spectacularly missed the point and instead sought to defend the tories.
    The only thing I've sought to defend is the electorate from your condescension.
    Like I've asked many times, by all means elaborate on where exactly I've been defending the Tories or cheerleading for them.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The English don't like the SNP, the tories played on that fear and dislike of the SNP as they are entitled to do. It's the same as how Labour play on the fear the public have over the tories and the NHS.
    I've never once claimed that the Tories don't 'scaremonger'. My assertion is that is was not pivotal in Labour's defeat at the election. You ranked up there, right with Labour's wipe out in Scotland and Ed Miliband's leadership failings, 'Tory media scaremongering' as a decisive factor. Not the English public being wary of the SNP, no, the 'Tory media scaremongering'. That's pretty much you implying that the 'Tory media' dictates what is and isn't an issue for us dumb sheeple.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I never said the tories could not campaign on the SNP, but just that's what they did and it was an effective tactic, especially in Lib-Dem/ Tory marginals. In fact the Beckett report found that fear of the SNP was a fairly big factor especially in those marginals.
    The completely not independent Beckett report that refused to publish any of it's polling data, that has been derided by even those on the left as a complete whitewash? That Beckett report?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Back to the point of why David Miliband may have fared no better. David Miliband would not have stopped the SNP landlside. He too would have needed the SNP to form a majority government.
    Labour got around 230 seats in England and Wales. Now don't get me wrong, I like David Miliband and he's a good politician but if you think he could have won a majority in England and Wales alone you're barking mad.

    He still would have needed the SNP, the British public still would have feared the SNP and not wanted them in government and the tories would have campaigned to play on those fears as they did and are entitled to.

    No, he probably wouldn't have won a majority. But David would have been (probably) a stronger and more decisive leader, more politically central, not a pawn of the Trade Unions, and less suspectible to SNP manipulation. So no, 'Tory press scaremongering' wouldn't have been as decisive, if it ever was. Apparently in the fantasy world of Margaret Beckett it's only Lib Dem voters that are susceptible to scaremongering.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Quite why you are so personally offended by that or feel the need to jump in to defend the tories when I was not even attacking them is perplexing.

    David M is a good politician but a 1997 Tony Blair he wasn't. He may have done a bit better than Ed but hardly much.

    I don't see how that's left wing self righteousness or whatever you're making it out to be.
    Again, where exactly am I jumping in to defend the Tories? Where is this Tory cheerleading?
    It's self-righteousness because to continually dismiss my non partisan point as Tory cheerleading implies that you have a sense of superiority where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically inherently underhand, in this case manipulated by the media or a Tory stooge.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You're just making up my position now. The tories played on pre-exisitng fears as they are entitled to do.

    David Miliband would have still needed the SNP to form a government unless you believe he would have won another 106 seats in England and Wales than Ed did.
    If you think David Miliband would have done that then I would argue you are delusional. He would have done better than Ed in England, but 106 seats better? Not a chance.
    Why does that so personally offend you?
    I've explained my point on the other post.
    Would a Lib Dem voter, apparently highly susceptible to Tory scaremongering we're told, have believed that a strong, charismatic, centre-left David Miliband, who isn't a complete damp rag with no spine, have grovelled to the SNP and become their ***** solely to win the election, just because the 'Tory press' told them so?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I've explained my point on the other post.
    Would a Lib Dem voter, apparently highly susceptible to Tory scaremongering we're told, have believed that a strong, charismatic, centre-left David Miliband, who isn't a complete damp rag with no spine, have grovelled to the SNP and become their ***** solely to win the election, just because the 'Tory press' told them so?
    He still would have needed the SNP to form a government.
    The English public didn't want an SNP.

    Yes David would have done better but the bottom line is he would have needed the SNP to form a government.
    It's not complicated. And given that the Tories campaigned so heavily about the SNP, it's logical. They played on and exploited pre existing fears, as labour do with the NHS.

    Now why you feel so personally offended by that I'm not sure.

    The question was would David have done much better than ed, my answer is slightly better but unlikely much, he couldn't have won a majority and would therefore have needed the SNP. You may think he's stronger and more charismatic but the bottom line is he would have needed the SNP. The SNP meant labour could not win a majority and it also meant the Tories could play on pre existing fears.

    Nothing I have said there is barmy, why you are so angry I have no idea.

    Of course the media is powerful and has an impact, why else do you think the oligarchs invest billions into it? Of course people are influenced by what they hear and see.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You seem to have a severe chronology issue. I've been more than willing to debate points. Left-wing jibes towards you only occurred afterwards out of exasperation of your out-of-hand dismissal of everything as somehow Tory cheerleading while at first refusing to debate the point. That's not one bit in the slightest a double standard.



    Be prepared to take what?
    It's pretty clear my implication is that you are, ironically, a fervent advocate of identity politics, not that you're a pinko socialist. It doesn't matter where you sit politically within the Labour party, you're clearly still a die-hard, what with the Beckett Report being your bible, and any point I raise being Tory cheerleading.



    The only thing I've sought to defend is the electorate from your condescension.
    Like I've asked many times, by all means elaborate on where exactly I've been defending the Tories or cheerleading for them.



    I've never once claimed that the Tories don't 'scaremonger'. My assertion is that is was not pivotal in Labour's defeat at the election. You ranked up there, right with Labour's wipe out in Scotland and Ed Miliband's leadership failings, 'Tory media scaremongering' as a decisive factor. Not the English public being wary of the SNP, no, the 'Tory media scaremongering'. That's pretty much you implying that the 'Tory media' dictates what is and isn't an issue for us dumb sheeple.



    The completely not independent Beckett report that refused to publish any of it's polling data, that has been derided by even those on the left as a complete whitewash? That Beckett report?




    No, he probably wouldn't have won a majority. But David would have been (probably) a stronger and more decisive leader, more politically central, not a pawn of the Trade Unions, and less suspectible to SNP manipulation. So no, 'Tory press scaremongering' wouldn't have been as decisive, if it ever was. Apparently in the fantasy world of Margaret Beckett it's only Lib Dem voters that are susceptible to scaremongering.



    Again, where exactly am I jumping in to defend the Tories? Where is this Tory cheerleading?
    It's self-righteousness because to continually dismiss my non partisan point as Tory cheerleading implies that you have a sense of superiority where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically inherently underhand, in this case manipulated by the media or a Tory stooge.
    You can't complain about Tory stooge accusations and then throw out 'left wing self..' Comments.

    You can't complain about personal attacks and the throw them out.

    If you can't take it, don't give it.

    But here's the crux:
    David milliband would still have needed the SNP and could therefore have not won the election. Unless you think David milliband would have won 106 more seats in England.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You can't complain about Tory stooge accusations and then throw out 'left wing self..' Comments.

    You can't complain about personal attacks and the throw them out.

    If you can't take it, don't give it.

    But here's the crux:
    David milliband would still have needed the SNP and could therefore have not won the election. Unless you think David milliband would have won 106 more seats in England.
    You're the only one who has complained and whined about personal attacks and this and that, so it's a bit rich for you to then say 'if you can't take it, don't give it.'
    I frankly don't care what you call me, I'm asking for clarification as to why. I've at least explained why I call you a self-righteous lefty, where as from the sounds of it you're literally only calling me a Tory cheerleader for the sake of it, out of your hardline identity politics ideology or petty tit-for-tat. But for the umpteenth time, by all means actually point out where I was being a said Tory cheerleader.

    Stop moving the goalposts. I've never said David Miliband could have won the election, my point has only and always ever been about the effectiveness of party scaremongering, which you claimed was an absolutely pivotal reason in Ed Miliband's defeat.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You're the only one who has complained and whined about personal attacks and this and that, so it's a bit rich for you to then say 'if you can't take it, don't give it.'
    I frankly don't care what you call me, I'm asking for clarification as to why. I've at least explained why I call you a self-righteous lefty, where as from the sounds of it you're literally only calling me a Tory cheerleader for the sake of it, out of your hardline identity politics ideology or petty tit-for-tat. But for the umpteenth time, by all means actually point out where I was being a said Tory cheerleader.

    Stop moving the goalposts. I've never said David Miliband could have won the election, my point has only and always ever been about the effectiveness of party scaremongering, which you claimed was an absolutely pivotal reason in Ed Miliband's defeat.
    You guys still going ?! :lol:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal World)
    You guys still going ?! :lol:
    I've been told I'm stubborn 😁
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'll answer the thread title with this latest Scottish poll..

    Scottish parliament voting intention (const.): SNP: 50% (-1) CON: 20% (+1) LAB: 19% (-2) (via YouGov / 01 - 04 Feb)

    ..

    The Comrade may be a lovely and well meaning man but the left got greedy. Instead of taking a step to the left or trying Miliband 2.0 they elected an extremist, a republican who is dubious about NATO, wants the union gone and wants to give away our overseas territories.

    Regardless of whether he could make an economic case, he has so much extremist baggage that there's even the possibility he could lose 1000 council seats in May and not even hold second place in Scotland.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You're the only one who has complained and whined about personal attacks and this and that, so it's a bit rich for you to then say 'if you can't take it, don't give it.'
    I frankly don't care what you call me, I'm asking for clarification as to why. I've at least explained why I call you a self-righteous lefty, where as from the sounds of it you're literally only calling me a Tory cheerleader for the sake of it, out of your hardline identity politics ideology or petty tit-for-tat. But for the umpteenth time, by all means actually point out where I was being a said Tory cheerleader.

    Stop moving the goalposts. I've never said David Miliband could have won the election, my point has only and always ever been about the effectiveness of party scaremongering, which you claimed was an absolutely pivotal reason in Ed Miliband's defeat.
    Let's leave the personal jibes there.
    Nothing I've said has been left wing here. Saying David would not have fared much better than ed is not left or right wing.
    I'm not moving any goalposts. My initial and only point was that David milliband would not have done much better.
    That's it.

    That's my point, David m would not have won the election because he still would have needed the SNP.

    I don't know why you read into that, that the Tories only won because of brainwashing.

    The Tories played on pre existing fears and did it well. Labour do the same, although usually not as well because they don't have the tabloids on their side as much.

    The media is not the only reason, of course not. But it does have an impact.

    That's it. David would not have fared much better than ed. you agree with that so I'm not sure why you are so offended. People really did not want the SNP in government and David could not have stopped that, unless you think he would have won 106 more seats in England.



    You are instead arguing against a point I did not make. Are people influenced by the media? Of course. Is it the only factor? No. But can it play on people's pre-existing fears? Absolutely.

    That's hardly radical, especially given that the vast amount of big national newspapers are right leaning/ pro Tory.


    So it comes to this, i was asked whether David would have done better and I said 'not much better'.
    Do you disagree with that? Don't get me wrong I'm delighted that you seem to have so much faith in a labour politician, I wish I did. If he's half as good as you're making out if have him back tomorrow.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Let's leave the personal jibes there.
    Nothing I've said has been left wing here. Saying David would not have fared much better than ed is not left or right wing.
    I'm not moving any goalposts. My initial and only point was that David milliband would not have done much better.
    That's it.

    That's my point, David m would not have won the election because he still would have needed the SNP.

    I don't know why you read into that, that the Tories only won because of brainwashing.

    The Tories played on pre existing fears and did it well. Labour do the same, although usually not as well because they don't have the tabloids on their side as much.

    The media is not the only reason, of course not. But it does have an impact.

    That's it. David would not have fared much better than ed. you agree with that so I'm not sure why you are so offended. People really did not want the SNP in government and David could not have stopped that, unless you think he would have won 106 more seats in England.



    You are instead arguing against a point I did not make. Are people influenced by the media? Of course. Is it the only factor? No. But can it play on people's pre-existing fears? Absolutely.

    That's hardly radical, especially given that the vast amount of big national newspapers are right leaning/ pro Tory.


    So it comes to this, i was asked whether David would have done better and I said 'not much better'.
    Do you disagree with that? Don't get me wrong I'm delighted that you seem to have so much faith in a labour politician, I wish I did. If he's half as good as you're making out if have him back tomorrow.
    I explained why I inferred what I did from what you said. I read your point as it was Tory scaremongering that caused Ed to lose.
    If you didn't mean that, it would have been much easier to just say that at the beginning instead of dismissing me as a Tory cheerleader.
    It would have been much harder for David Miliband to be portrayed as Alex Salmond's *****. Of course he still wouldn't have won a majority, but that's not due to Tory scaremongering. That was literally my only point, which snowballed into a full-fledged argument somehow.
    Also, is the newspaper readership consumer market centre-right because the newspapers are, or are the newspapers centre-right because the consumer market is?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I explained why I inferred what I did from what you said. I read your point as it was Tory scaremongering that caused Ed to lose.
    If you didn't mean that, it would have been much easier to just say that at the beginning instead of dismissing me as a Tory cheerleader.
    It would have been much harder for David Miliband to be portrayed as Alex Salmond's *****. Of course he still wouldn't have won a majority, but that's not due to Tory scaremongering. That was literally my only point, which snowballed into a full-fledged argument somehow.
    Also, is the newspaper readership consumer market centre-right because the newspapers are, or are the newspapers centre-right because the consumer market is?
    I didn't mean what you thought I did initially.
    Apologies if I was unclear.
    People didn't like the SNP and I'm not saying that because of the tory press. But what the Tory and the right wing press did was play on those fears of the SNP especially in marginals and it was successful tactic.

    Labour and the fewer left wing papers try and do much the same by playing on people's pre existing fears of the Tories and the NHS.

    Those who say the press and media have no impact at all are just as stupid as those who say it is the only factor. The reality is inbewteen.


    I believe the media certainly impacts the debate though and leads people to have false opinions due to he coverage they give certain issues. In a yougov poll, on average people estimated that 27% of benefit claims were fraudulent, the governments own official estimate was 0.7%.
    You may disagree but to me the disproportionate focus placed on individual case by the press warp the reality in peoples minds.

    Same with immigration, people generally estimate we have twice as many immigrants as is true.


    Now of course the media is not the only factor, but it is a factor. I'm not saying that's the only reason Ed lost, not at all. But the ferocious media attacks certainly worked against him.

    Also remember most people don't think about politics anywhere near as much as people on this forum so of course they will be more likely influenced by what they read and hear.

    Same with me and football, I don't watch and engage in it as much as many others so I'm clearly going to be more influenced and more reliant on what I read and hear about it.



    But back to my initial point, I think David milliband would have done a bit better. But ultimately I feel people would have not wanted the SNP more than they wanted David milliband.

    And given that he would have needed them I think it's very very unlikely he would have won or even come close to winning the election.
    Labour have to win in England now, or way least come close enough. It's going to take a an Obama, once in a lifetime candidate. Whether or not such a person exists is another matter.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I explained why I inferred what I did from what you said. I read your point as it was Tory scaremongering that caused Ed to lose.
    If you didn't mean that, it would have been much easier to just say that at the beginning instead of dismissing me as a Tory cheerleader.
    It would have been much harder for David Miliband to be portrayed as Alex Salmond's *****. Of course he still wouldn't have won a majority, but that's not due to Tory scaremongering. That was literally my only point, which snowballed into a full-fledged argument somehow.
    Also, is the newspaper readership consumer market centre-right because the newspapers are, or are the newspapers centre-right because the consumer market is?
    The country as a whole is i believe Blairite just with harder attitudes to immigration and welfare.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Let's leave the personal jibes there.
    Nothing I've said has been left wing here. Saying David would not have fared much better than ed is not left or right wing.
    I'm not moving any goalposts. My initial and only point was that David milliband would not have done much better.
    That's it.
    You statement was counterfactual. Nothing more nothing less.

    Quite why you wasted so much time arguing it is beyond me, and everyone
    else on this thread, probably including even you.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.