Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Labour leadership

Murdoch always back the likely winner. This goes as far back as Koch's mayoral election for NYC. He prefers conviction politicians too. Corbyn makes sense.
 
Doctor Carrot said:
I'm more interested in the guardian implying it means Murdoch is supporting him rather than just calling the likely winner.
Click to expand...

It probably means that to some extent too. Once he comes out for someone he tends to give them some kind of backing. For example, Ed Koch was a Democrat but Murdoch stuck with him.
 
Favelado said:
It probably means that to some extent too. Once he comes out for someone he tends to give them some kind of backing. For example, Ed Koch was a Democrat but Murdoch stuck with him.
Click to expand...
Can you see the likes of the sun newspaper supporting renationalisation and suddenly being nice to benefit claimants and actively campaigning for increased benefit rates?
 
Doctor Carrot said:
Can you see the likes of the sun newspaper supporting renationalisation and suddenly being nice to benefit claimants and actively campaigning for increased benefit rates?
Click to expand...

Probably not but if Corbyn became especially popular The Sun would drop it's "principles" in a flash. It's just that Corbyn will struggle to reach the levels of popularity required for that.
 
Favelado said:
Probably not but if Corbyn became especially popular The Sun would drop it's "principles" in a flash. It's just that Corbyn will struggle to reach the levels of popularity required for that.
Click to expand...
Yeah they'd likely soften but can't see them going further than that. Who knows maybe the old cunt's gone senile? Or maybe he's bored and trolling? He did support the yes campaign for Scotland didn't he?
 
It's not a bad way of keeping Cameron on his toes, probably just the hint that he might back Corbyn should do the trick.
 
killer b said:
If it's popular with their readers, then yes.
Click to expand...
its already popular with the public at large. I cant see it

Favelado said:
It probably means that to some extent too. Once he comes out for someone he tends to give them some kind of backing. For example, Ed Koch was a Democrat but Murdoch stuck with him.
Click to expand...
i think Dr Carrot is exactly right - he's just predicting the winner as you might in a horse race - theres no way any of his papers are going to start supporting him. He hasnt 'come out for him' in any shape or form
 
ska invita said:
its already popular with the public at large. I cant see it


i think Dr Carrot is exactly right - he's just predicting the winner as you might in a horse race - theres no way any of his papers are going to start supporting him. He hasnt 'come out for him' in any shape or form
Click to expand...

Yes I think the Guardian's stance is more to turn their readers against voting for JC than Murdoch's mischief making.
 
magneze said:
Yes, their campaign to stop him becoming leader has been going so well. This latest misinformation is a sure fire winner. :thumbs:
Click to expand...
almost as successful as a banner on the site i saw today asking me to subscribe with a picture of polly toynbee next to it :D
 
magneze said:
Yes, their campaign to stop him becoming leader has been going so well. This latest misinformation is a sure fire winner. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

They are flip flopping and so pathetic in their attacks that they are clutching at straws. I believe that if they could find some connection to Pol Pot or Himmler they would be using it.

It was bad enough listening to Diane Abbot and James Bloodworth arguing over how anti-Semitic Corbyn is by sharing platforms thirty odd years ago with militant Palestinians, on Today on Radio4 this morning!
 
ska invita said:
i think Dr Carrot is exactly right - he's just predicting the winner as you might in a horse race - theres no way any of his papers are going to start supporting him. He hasnt 'come out for him' in any shape or form
Click to expand...

I basically agree but he has got a track record of rejecting political bedfellows he feels are weak. Just adding that caveat. I don't think Murdoch papers would give overt support at an early stage but in the unlikely event Corbyn looked like he was going to win an election clearly Murdoch would indeed back him I think - odd though it may seem.

I keep going back to the Koch mayoral election because it's relevant to this. The Republican candidate expected the Daily Post's automatic support - and got a nasty surprise.
 
Louis MacNeice said:
I was pointing out your lack of attention to even simple detail, much as I've just done.

So back to the substance; given that the Conservatives attracted about 24% of the available vote and about 37% of the votes cast, what exactly constitutes this country that want a Tory government? It isn't the population of the UK, or the population of the UK registered to vote, or even the population of the UK registered to vote who actually did so; what exactly is the country that you so confidently asserts wants a Tory government?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Click to expand...

The majority will of votes cast (the popular vote) voted in the Tories, ergo the majority will of the voters of the UK wanted a Tory government.

You can try and ignore that all you want with perverse arguments around those who did not care to vote, who effectively didn't give two shits about which government that got in, but to try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the country is totally absurd.
 
Warning, team. Danger ahead!

Screen-Shot-2013-04-08-at-22.41.02.png
 
Lets not forget that 100% of tory voters voted for the Conservative party. To try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the Conservative party is totally absurd.
 
two sheds said:
Lets not forget that 100% of tory voters voted for the Conservative party. To try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the Conservative party is totally absurd.
Click to expand...
Thats a very good point, you should drive it home, ;)
 
Anyway, I assume this is the "mood music" for the eventual legal challenge (and stitch-up) that will follow a Corby win?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-ignored-legal-membership?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Party lawyers had supported an extra stage of verification in order to protect Labour against a legal challenge by unsuccessful candidates, saying this would put the party in a good position to say its election process had been “robust”.

Under the legal advice, people known to have voted for other parties according to Labour canvass returns would have been asked to confirm again that they really did support its aims and values. But the party’s procedure committee voted to take no action.
 
Diamond said:
The majority will of votes cast (the popular vote) voted in the Tories, ergo the majority will of the voters of the UK wanted a Tory government.

You can try and ignore that all you want with perverse arguments around those who did not care to vote, who effectively didn't give two shits about which government that got in, but to try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the country is totally absurd.
Click to expand...

please fuck off this thread and start your own one to discuss your deluded bollocks about vote shares.
 
a friend of mine has just posted on Facebook, that he registered to join the labour party, to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, but has just has an email from Labour saying they dont believe he is a labour supporter , im going to ask him to post up the email to prve its true, but has anyone else experienced this?
 
Diamond said:
The majority will of votes cast (the popular vote) voted in the Tories, ergo the majority will of the voters of the UK wanted a Tory government.

You can try and ignore that all you want with perverse arguments around those who did not care to vote, who effectively didn't give two shits about which government that got in, but to try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the country is totally absurd.
Click to expand...

No, a simple majority of people who voted in the UK wanted a Tory government. Not 'the' majority of voters in the UK. The majority of people who voted (i.e more than 50%) did not vote for a tory government. The only things you can say with certainty are these:

The Tories have a simple majority.
37% of people who voted voted for the Tories.
25% of the electorate voted for the Tories.

The only things you can infer from that would be along the lines of:

75% of the electorate did not vote for the Tories.
37% of those who voted are likely to have wanted a Tory government.

You cannot infer the following:

Only those that voted are 'political' (whatever the fuck you mean by that).
Those that voted are 'political' (whatever the fuck you mean by that).
Members of the electorate who did not vote 'didn't give two shits which government got in' (possibly unless you mean 'didn't give a shit which of the two main parties got in').
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
yvette cooper's pitiful politics
Replies
0
Views
198
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
hitmouse
Unions and Labour
Replies
20
Views
957
Fedayn
Fedayn
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
279
Humberto
Humberto
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
896
Views
30K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
frogwoman
Jas Athwal - Labour MP owns several London flats full of ants and black mould
Replies
14
Views
918
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Back
Top Bottom