Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

I am still mystified by what he thought he was doing walking into their embassy to ask about it (thanks to Kebabking for putting me straight on that one). It's like handing the right wing press a ready loaded gun. All in all vey ill-considered imo. They are still an irrelevance, at least to me anyway.
 
Last edited:
i'd have thought trident was by far the better in for that line of attack. It has proven the bigger issue so far (from what media and convos I've had)

He's making a balls-up of that too taking the flack for blatantly playing to Union self-interest ahead of the review. Needs to develop a poker face and stop speculating out loud.
 
That's been used as well. They're not limited to one thing. And trident is an actual real life ongoing issue. That's one issue here - the other one is your dismissal of it because you weren't born at the time and so this means neither you nor anyone else cares. In that case, what has it become an issue?
why? thats a point. Perhaps more people than I recon actually do have strong views still as spy was saying....thread alone suggests its still something of a dispute. An unsettled argument over soveriegnty and etc
 
i am still mystified by what he thought he was doing walking into their embassy to ask about it (thanks to Kebabking for putting me straight on that one). It's like handing the right wing press a ready loaded gun. All in all vey ill-considered imo. They are still an irrelevance, at least to me anyway.

Is the notion that he just walked in a bit misleading? Presumably a meeting was arranged.

But even so diversionary and unnecessary. Just looks like a hobby horse.

If there is such a thing as a Labour 'Grandee' who is his boss he should pull him in for a trouser shriveling bollocking and remind him that he is there for one thing only and that is to provide effective leadership to the Labour Party and opposition to the Tories as they ruin things for loads of ordinary people and if he doesn't want to show leadership he can buggah off to the benches.
 
He's making a balls-up of that too taking the flack for blatantly playing to Union self-interest ahead of the review. Needs to develop a poker face and stop speculating out loud.
I had noticed the kerfuffle. Would foriegn policy/defence alone lose him an election? in a vacuum say, everything else policies etc are loved and its all rosy. I'd assume it would.
 
I had noticed the kerfuffle. Would foriegn policy/defence alone lose him an election? in a vacuum say, everything else policies etc are loved and its all rosy. I'd assume it would.

Analysis of the last election seems to suggest that Labour didn't do better because a significant number of people didn't 'trust' them - on a wide variety of issues in quite a nebulous way.

Considering they lost to a staggeringly untrustworthy bunch of rapacious Tories barstewards who would sell the hearing aids out of your ear, that's quite a big problem on 'Trust'. So any component of it is important even if the issue is not so much.
 
Analysis of the last election seems to suggest that Labour didn't do better because a significant number of people didn't 'trust' them - on a wide variety of issues in quite a nebulous way.

Considering they lost to a staggeringly untrustworthy bunch of rapacious Tories barstewards who would sell the hearing aids out of your ear, that's quite a big problem on 'Trust'. So any component of it is important even if the issue is not so much.

It's a funny thing about trust - we'd rather have someone we can trust will do many awful things than someone we can't trust will do any good, apparently.
 
or indeed the French Islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, just 20 miles from Canada, yet somehow the Canadian electorate manages to retain its pants while 6,000 Frenchies flagrantly eat snails, listen to dreadful europop and ban soap within sight of Canada?

I reckon there must be something well dodgy about those islands. Britain seized them a few times, particularly during the Napoleonic wars, and always ceded them back to France.
 
I reckon there must be something well dodgy about those islands. Britain seized them a few times, particularly during the Napoleonic wars, and always ceded them back to France.

French had been there before - doesn't matter how hard you scrub, you'll never get the Frenchness out of the place. no decent person could live there, so it made sense to ceed them back to France as if they'd won something. we got Canada, they got some cold wet islands that smell of fish - and Frenchmen.

(the above is, for the terminally humourless, a joke..)
 
French had been there before - doesn't matter how hard you scrub, you'll never get the Frenchness out of the place. no decent person could live there, so it made sense to ceed them back to France as if they'd won something. we got Canada, they got some cold wet islands that smell of fish - and Frenchmen.

(the above is, for the terminally humourless, a joke..)
i didn't know you had it in you
 
Why are all your posts so devoid of content? Why don't you try saying something of substance for once because you're coming cross as a twat at the moment
What a weird accusation but it's also indicative of your own lack of self-awareness and your inability to grasp something as simple as the symbolic nature of the Falklands in British politics, and how those symbols are used as a means to attack the perceived lack of patriotism of a politician or group of people.

The only one who is being a twat is you. Stop projecting and trying to cover up your inability to analyse and think critically.
 
What a weird accusation but it's also indicative of your own lack of self-awareness and your inability to grasp something as simple as the symbolic nature of the Falklands in British politics, and how those symbols are used as a means to attack the perceived lack of patriotism of a politician or group of people.

The only one who is being a twat is you. Stop projecting and trying to cover up your inability to analyse and think critically.

You're not thinking critically. Your approach to the Falklands is about symbolism not people. Thatcher helped them, they must be your enemies. They are WASPs and not Latin people, boo! Somebody else has had something worse, boo!

It's a simple enough question, what would you propose, but sadly the world seems likely to miss out on the promise of such wisdom.
 
You're not thinking critically. Your approach to the Falklands is about symbolism not people. Thatcher helped them, they must be your enemies. They are WASPs and not Latin people, boo! Somebody else has had something worse, boo!

It's a simple enough question, what would you propose, but sadly the world seems likely to miss out on the promise of such wisdom.
your username seems to be missing an 'r'.
 
Is the notion that he just walked in a bit misleading? Presumably a meeting was arranged.

But even so diversionary and unnecessary. Just looks like a hobby horse.

If there is such a thing as a Labour 'Grandee' who is his boss he should pull him in for a trouser shriveling bollocking and remind him that he is there for one thing only and that is to provide effective leadership to the Labour Party and opposition to the Tories as they ruin things for loads of ordinary people and if he doesn't want to show leadership he can buggah off to the benches.

Prescott? seems a bit of a reformed character, I agree its needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom