Would a more centrist Labour be polling higher now?

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

Tuition Fees, not debt. You can't read.

Didn't say he "loves" terrorist, just it's hypocritical to say that you want to build bridges, but not share a platform with someone who is campaigning FOR THE SAME THING (of course Corbyns stance on Brexit is a little vague to say the least), unless you think that a democratically elected leader is somehow worse than a terrorist organisation which had called for the destruction of a neighbour?

So no, you've never heard of logic and reason. You might want to change that.

He didn't and hasn't promised to scrap student debt.

You are conflating separate issues. Campaigning with Cameron would not have helped the remain side at all. Tactically it would have been a bad move, given how the leave side were having much joy with framing the remain side as an establishment stitch up. Having Corbyn and Cameron on the same stage being all chummy would have given the leave side even more ammunition. It would also have been tactically disastrous for Labour who had previously suffered badly for aligning themselves with the Tories in Scotland.

You're trying to insert a non issue into the equation. His decision not to share a stage with Cameron was a tactical one, not a moral one.

Reply 102

Original post by DeBruyne18

1.He didn't and hasn't promised to scrap student debt.

2.You are conflating separate issues. Campaigning with Cameron would not have helped the remain side at all. Tactically it would have been a bad move, given how the leave side were having much joy with framing the remain side as an establishment stitch up. Having Corbyn and Cameron on the same stage being all chummy would have given the leave side even more ammunition. It would also have been tactically disastrous for Labour who had previously suffered badly for aligning themselves with the Tories in Scotland.

You're trying to insert a non issue into the equation. His decision not to share a stage with Cameron was a tactical one, not a moral one.

1. You cannot read, can you (or at least anything not written by you). During the election campaign two labour mps stated that if the labour party won, they would cancel student debt. This was reported in the press and Corbyn failed correct this.

2. No I'm not, you are refusing to see the point that Corbyn thinks that (and a lot of his support) a terrorist organisation that called for the destruction of another country is better than the elected leader. Which he does.

The reason he didn't campaign for Remain is because HE WANTS TO LEAVE THE EU! That's why he is being so vague!

You keep on posting rubbish, either lies, or you're badly misinformed on the subject.

Reply 103

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

1. You cannot read, can you (or at least anything not written by you). During the election campaign two labour mps stated that if the labour party won, they would cancel student debt. This was reported in the press and Corbyn failed correct this.

That's not correct. One promised that all current students would have their debt wiped. The video of which only came to the public attention after the election. Corbyn at no point has said student debt will be wiped. I'm not really sure how you can go back on a promise you never made.

2. No I'm not, you are refusing to see the point that Corbyn thinks that (and a lot of his support) a terrorist organisation that called for the destruction of another country is better than the elected leader. Which he does.

The reason he didn't campaign for Remain is because HE WANTS TO LEAVE THE EU! That's why he is being so vague!

You keep on posting rubbish, either lies, or you're badly misinformed on the subject.

You most certainly are. I really don't get how you can't see the difference.

It was not about the fact it was Cameron per se. For example, when Jo Cox was murdered, he and Cameron together laid a wreath and led a ceremony about her.

His decision not to campaigned with Cameron in The European Referendum was based on the fact that it would have harmed the remain side and the Labour party. It was nothing to do with whether Cameron was better or worse than a terrorist organisation.

That really does not make him a hypocrite, as much as you may try to suggest it does.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 104

And him not campaigning at all, that didn't harm the side at all. Or all the articles ****ging off the EU that he deleted.

"
Corbyn at no point has said student debt will be wiped. I'm not really sure how you can go back on a promise you never made.
"

No, but he never corrected the statements made that they would. It's like he didn't mind misleading people. Like you. You keep making false statements, don't you?

Reply 105

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

And him not campaigning at all, that didn't harm the side at all. Or all the articles ****ging off the EU that he deleted.

"
Corbyn at no point has said student debt will be wiped. I'm not really sure how you can go back on a promise you never made.
"

No, but he never corrected the statements made that they would. It's like he didn't mind misleading people. Like you. You keep making false statements, don't you?

You are conflating several separate issues.

You are essentially saying that Corbyn's decision not to campaign with Cameron demonstrates that he thinks terrorists are better... Or something (despite you also claiming that it was because he wanted Brexit).

It's a rather silly argument. Corbyn has appeared at numerous events with Cameron and May. Demonstrated by how he led a joint ceremony for Jo Cox with Cameron. The reason he didn't campaign with Cameron was not because he thought he was worse than a terrorist or that he couldn't bring himself to stand alongside him. The Labour party made a decision that they were going to run their own European campaign and not repeat the mistakes of Scotland in which they were punished for being seen as far too chummy with the Tories. It harms the Labour brand to be seen as too close to their Tories. Plus, as mentioned several times, it would have harmed remain further if they were seen to be even more of an establishment stitch up.

Quite how that makes him a hypocrite, you really haven't explained so well.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 106

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

No, you haven't understood, not surprising considering the falsehoods you've posted (and I've pointed out).

I'm making the point that Corbyn is a hypocrite, yeah? Because he is, he has done/said hypocritical things. You don't want to accept that.

The argument that Corbyn sharing a platform on Brexit would harm the remain side? Rubbish.

Corbyn knew that the public thought that he would wipe out student debt (because it was reported in the press, and it was Labour MPs who were saying that), either he has no control, and is unaware of what's going on... or...

And let's not get started on the BS he's said about himself and the IRA.

Sadly, due to the rubbish you've posted, I don't think you have the intellectual capacity to get what I'm on about.

I've so far ignored the personal attacks you've made. They're rather unedifying and childish and hardly help your case.

On student debts, the public did not think he promised to wipe them out and yougov polling showed that something like 83% of the public did not think that. He did not promise to wipe out debts at all.

As for the platform sharing, your argument is totally incoherent and self contradictory. You have said that the reason Corbyn didn't share a platform with Cameron was because he though he was worse than terrorists, yet you're also saying that the reason was that he was pro Brexit. Well which one? I have pointed out that Corbyn has shared platforms with Cameron and May before and his decision not to was one the Labour party took after what had happened in Scotland. It really would not have helped remain the either. How many leave leaning voters would have gone 'I was pro leave but now I've seen Cameron and Corbyn on stage together acting chummy I'm switching to remain'. It would have been a pointless and counter productive endeavour.

So please, what is hypocritical about that?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 107

Original post by DeBruyne18

1.I've so far ignored the personal attacks you've made. They're rather unedifying and childish and hardly help your case.

On student debts, the public did not think he promised to wipe them out and yougov polling showed that something like 83% of the public did not think that. He did not promise to wipe out debts at all.

As for the platform sharing, your argument is totally incoherent and self contradictory. You have said that the reason Corbyn didn't share a platform with Cameron was because he though he was worse than terrorists, yet you're also saying that the reason was that he was pro Brexit. Well which one? I have pointed out that Corbyn has shared platforms with Cameron and May before and his decision not to was one the Labour party took after what had happened in Scotland. It really would not have helped remain the either.

2. How many leave leaning voters would have gone 'I was pro leave but now I've seen Cameron and Corbyn on stage together acting chummy I'm switching to remain'. It would have been a pointless and counter productive endeavour.

1. I've not made personal attacks, I've pointed out the mistakes you posted. You've yet to acknowledge that. So, it's more of a case of you ignoring the facts and calling me childish for pointing it out.

2. So, because you think that someone won't change their mind (because it suits you) then it doesn't matter? Corbyn is the guy who is critical of Israel, yet happy to take money from the Kremlin and Iran.

No, he did not say HIMSELF that he would wipe out student debts (that wouldn't be vague, which Corbyn is), but it was reported in the press (thanks to those Labour MPs) that that would happen, Corbyn could have corrected this, he didn't. He complains about the press being against him, yet tried to manipulate the media himself and failed badly.

These are hypocritical, no?

Reply 108

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

1. I've not made personal attacks, I've pointed out the mistakes you posted. You've yet to acknowledge that. So, it's more of a case of you ignoring the facts and calling me childish for pointing it out.

Calling someone stupid, saying they lack intellectual capacity and accusing them of being illiterate very much fall into the category of personal attacks. Again, it's rather childish.

2. So, because you think that someone won't change their mind (because it suits you) then it doesn't matter? Corbyn is the guy who is critical of Israel, yet happy to take money from the Kremlin and Iran.

What are you even arguing here? What does Israel have to do with anything that we were discussing?

There clearly is no point in a campaign event likely to do more harm than good.

No, he did not say HIMSELF that he would wipe out student debts (that wouldn't be vague, which Corbyn is), but it was reported in the press (thanks to those Labour MPs) that that would happen, Corbyn could have corrected this, he didn't. He complains about the press being against him, yet tried to manipulate the media himself and failed badly.

It was reported in the press after the election, at which point he confirmed that the policy was to wipe out tuition fees.

These are hypocritical, no?

No. And you simply stating something is hypocritical without justifying why doesn't rely convince.

I'm still waiting to hear how not being chummy on stage with Cameron, given the damage it had previously done to Labour in Scotland, makes him a hypocrite.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 109

"Calling someone stupid, saying they lack intellectual capacity and accusing them of being illiterate very much fall into the category of personal attacks. Again, it's rather childish. "

If someone can't read ( which you seem to have a problem with, as I've pointed out), and I point it out, isn't a personal attack, nor childish, trying to use the "Mummy, he's being nasty pointing out the mistakes I've made", that is.

"
It was reported in the press after the election, at which point he confirmed that the policy was to wipe out tuition fees.
"
No, it was reported during the election, due to those Labour MPs, at no point did Corbyn correct this. He would have been aware of it. More honest politics? No. Hypocrisy. Which is what we're discussing. I'm pointing out the times Corbyn has been hypocritical. You're just saying "no, he isn't". That's why I've questioned your intellect. Logic and reason.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 110

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

"Calling someone stupid, saying they lack intellectual capacity and accusing them of being illiterate very much fall into the category of personal attacks. Again, it's rather childish. "

If someone can't read ( which you seem to have a problem with, as I've pointed out), and I point it out, isn't a personal attack, nor childish, trying to use the "Mummy, he's being nasty pointing out the mistakes I've made", that is.

"
It was reported in the press after the election, at which point he confirmed that the policy was to wipe out tuition fees.
"
No, it was reported during the election, due to those Labour MPs, at no point did Corbyn correct this. He would have been aware of it. More honest politics? No. Hypocrisy. Which is what we're discussing. I'm pointing out the times Corbyn has been hypocritical. You're just saying "no, he isn't". That's why I've questioned your intellect. Logic and reason.

He set out the policy in the manifesto and confirmed it in speeches. Tuition fees were to be scrapped, student debt was not. The most he said on student debt was that they were looking into what could be done about it, which remains the truth and a reflection on current policy. I don't even agree with the policy.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how not doing a joint event with Cameron is hypocritical? What part of that was hypocritical?

Your argument so far seems to be taking a load of separate issues and conflating them to fabricate claims of hypocrisy.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 111

How do you explain to someone who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand?

Building bridges not walls. Yeah? If you say you're for remain, but refuse to share a platform with the people you're meant to be campaigning with, then perhaps you don't believe in the BBNW bit. Hypocritical.

I know you can't understand this. Just like you can't understand the difference between debt and tuition.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 112

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

How do you explain to someone who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand?

Building bridges not walls. Yeah? If you say you're for remain, but refuse to share a platform with the people you're meant to be campaigning with, then perhaps you don't believe in the BBNW bit. Hypocritical.

I know you can't understand this. Just like you can't understand the difference between debt and tuition.

Again, you are conflating completely separate issues and managing to contradict yourself while doing it.

BBNW was the rather fluffy idea that people shouldn't be divided by race, religion, gender or sexuality at time when various political leaders across the globe were doing just that.

It does not mean you should team up and campaign with people who you fundamentally disagree with on a political level, especially when it will do so much damage e to your own party. The reasons Labour wanted to remain were different to the tories anyway and a joint event between the two leaders would have been a pointless endeavour, especially when the leave camp were so good at painting remain as an establishment stitch up.

When he needed to put on a joint front with Cameron, he did so with regards to Jo Cox. It is appropriate for issues that transcend politics, not on wholly political issues.

You have rather unsurprisingly conflated two totally separate issues.

I do know the difference between debt and fees, given that he promised to scrap the latter and not the former. Again, your ability to make a coherent argument is badly lacking.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 113

So the Labour party is more important than the country.

He shared a platform when it suited HIM. You simply don't want to admit that the man is a hypocrite. I've explained why and the best you can do is go "yeah but no but"

Remember the Damian Green thread?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 114

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

So the Labour party is more important than the country.

He shared a platform when it suited HIM. You simply don't want to admit that the man is a hypocrite. I've explained why and the best you can do is go "yeah but no but"

Remember the Weinstein thread?

And you conflate separate issues AGAIN.

You're making out like Cameron was desperate for Corbyn to join him, rather he said Corbyn was 'welcome' to join him.

I'm sure he considered the Labour party being destroyed by being seen to be too close to the Tories as being rather bad for the country.

What benefit would have been gained by anyone by Cameron and Corbyn campaigning together? Absolutely Corbyn should have campaigned harder, but not campaigning with Cameron was not a mistake. Which voters were sat at home thinking 'you know what will sway me to vote remain? If Cameron and Corbyn do a joint event'.

Also, Corbyn's reasons for wanting to remain were focused on the damage the Tories would do if we left the EU. It would hardly therefore have been sensible to do a joint event with the party you are using as the reason for voting to remain.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how that makes him hypocritical? Your argument keeps shifting.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 115

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

1. No I'm not, you're wrong, again. Why do you keep getting things wrong?

I've pointed out why he's a hypocrite, if you don't understand why, not my problem. In the DG resigns thread you said that he looked at porn and lied about it. That's not true, he resigned because he lied about knowing about the allegations. This is why I'm saying you don't have the smarts dude. Empirical evidence.

And AGAIN, you throw in another totally unrelated issue.

You're argument lacks any sort of coherence whatsoever. You seem to think that stating 'Corbyn is a hypocrite and anyone who disagrees is an idiot' is a valid argument, it really is not'.

You started off by saying he's a hypocrite for not sharing a platform with Cameron, because apparently it means he thinks Cameron is worse than a terrorist. It was pointed out to you that the two are separate issues, given his judgement not to share a platform with Cameron during the EU debate was a tactical one, not a judgement of whether Cameron was worse than a terrorist or not. You also seemed to imply 'building bridges' meant campaigning with people on political issues who you fundamentally disagree with, which isn't at all what it means.

You then, without realizing, totally contradicted yourself by claiming the reason he didn't share a platform was because he was pro-Brexit...

You then decided to throw in a bunch of personal attacks, calling me stupid and claimed I lacked intellectual capacity (a tactic of all good debaters for sure) and started throwing in a whole host of irrelevant issues from Israel to Damien Green, completely veering away from your argument that Corbyn was a hypocrite for not sharing a platform with Cameron...

I can only assume one of two things. Either you don't know what they word 'hypocrite means', or more likely you are just trying to throw as much Sh*t at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks. Not once, have you made a coherent justification for why not sharing a platforming and being chummy with Cameron was hypocritical.

2. Your opinion, nothing more.

Of course it is, and you've offered absolutely nothing to suggest that Cameron and Corbyn doing a joint event and acting chummy would have had any benefit whatsoever to the remain side, especially when Corbyn was arguing we needed to leave the EU to stop Cameron and the Tories turning us into a right wing tax haven.

You're not one of those saddos who have no life, so they resort to posting bintry on the internet, you know, it's the only way people will pay attention to you?

Of course, you wouldn't resort to personal attacks would you? Now who's the hypocrite...

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 116

"Of course it is, and you've offered absolutely nothing to suggest that Cameron and Corbyn doing a joint event and acting chummy would have had any benefit whatsoever to the remain side, especially when Corbyn was arguing we needed to leave the EU to stop Cameron and the Tories turning us into a right wing tax haven."

Right, so you've just said that Corbyn was arguing we need to leave the EU, yeah? So if that's true he would have been a hypocrite for siding with remain. The point here is Corbyn is a hypocrite, the fact you fail to understand this leads me to believe you are a saddo. It's not a personal attack, you know why? Because I'm judging EVERYONE by the same standard. I didn't say that if Corbyn shared a platform with Cameron would have changed the results, so ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE POSTED SOMETING WHICH ISN'T TRUE.

You are the one moving the goal posts, like a child who says "I know you are, you said you are..."

Empirical evidence.

Reply 117

OP

Original post by Karl_Redak

"Of course it is, and you've offered absolutely nothing to suggest that Cameron and Corbyn doing a joint event and acting chummy would have had any benefit whatsoever to the remain side, especially when Corbyn was arguing we needed to leave the EU to stop Cameron and the Tories turning us into a right wing tax haven."

Right, so you've just said that Corbyn was arguing we need to leave the EU, yeah? So if that's true he would have been a hypocrite for siding with remain. The point here is Corbyn is a hypocrite, the fact you fail to understand this leads me to believe you are a saddo. It's not a personal attack, you know why? Because I'm judging EVERYONE by the same standard. I didn't say that if Corbyn shared a platform with Cameron would have changed the results, so ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE POSTED SOMETING WHICH ISN'T TRUE.

You are the one moving the goal posts, like a child who says "I know you are, you said you are..."

Empirical evidence.

That was a typo. It meant to say 'especially when Corbyn was arguing we needed to remain in the EU to stop Cameron and the Tories turning us into a right wing tax haven."

Since Corbyn was arguing we needed to stay in the EU or else the tories would turn us into a tax haven, it would have looked rather stupid to then share a platform and campaign with those same Tories.

So no, I don't see how that makes him a hypocrite.

The reason he didn't share a platform was due to the damage it would have done to Labour and arguably, the damage it would have done to remain. The last thing the remain camp needed were pictures of the establishment figures all ganging up to agree with each other.

You may criticise his decision not to do a joint event with Cameron, but that doesn't mean he's a hypocrite for not doing so.
I somehow doubt the intention of BBNW was for the Labour and Tory leaders to be all chummy and side with each other. They are meant to be opposed to each other on political issues and offer political choice.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 118

"So no, I don't see how that makes him a hypocrite."

Of course not, you don't see when you misrepresent what I've written, so you won't see why you're wrong.

" The reason he didn't share a platform was due to the damage it would have done to Labour and arguably, the damage it would have done to remain. The last thing the remain camp needed were pictures of the establishment figures all ganging up to agree with each other. "

So, the Labour party is more important to Corbyn than the UK, is that what you're saying. Cos that ain't much better.

Reply 119

OP