Thought Corbyn was pretty poor; clearly not his preferred format.Andy Burnham seems really pissed off, I don't think this leadership election is going the way he wanted it to.
Rather than ranting, why not make your case? Isn't that what lawyers are supposed to be good at?
why though? do you think he couldn't actually win? I don't see why not. The man has proved capable hands for a very long time, this isn't some newly minted firebrand (lol) nor is he advocating anything incredibly radical. Its a mark of how well you swallowed all the right wing rhetoric that you've called him hard left in the past, he is not hard left in any way at all. Stop reading papers and start listening to people. Cos there is a lot of them nodding along thoughtfully to corbynite ideas (which aren't his but merely a continuation of old labs keynsian stuff)
Ever get the feeling that Diamond had plans to go the new Labour/Progress route to a political career?
Don't know about that, though he's a big enough dick, but he certainly seems to have an emotional attachment to a system that allows public schoolboys of low to middling ability to get into law school and then straight into a cushty number at a 'magic circle' law firm.
CFY (the answer is "No", BTW)
I know you're a thick cunt.you know fuck all about me
Fuck off Diamond. It's just the same post over and over again. We've moved on. Other people have other stuff to say.
Miliband minor campaigned on a left-wing prospectus and failed on that basis.
To pretend otherwise in the battle of the brothers means that you either think (i) that he was not left-wing enough and might have carried the popular vote if he had gone down a more radical route, and/or (ii) that Miliband major would never have won in any event because he was never going to be left-wing enough.
It's time to come to one's senses here. Labour failed because they were unable to persuade people of their credentials - be they left or right-wing.
To think tacking further left into, admittedly interesting, more radical territory with Corbyn could deliver a proper electoral victory, the like of which the Tories have just achieved, is bonkers.
I know you're a thick cunt.
No, he didn't. He campaigned on a centrist (as opposed to Blairite right-centrist) prospectus, and didn't lose on the policies he campaigned on, but because of the perceptions (assisted by the media) of Labour as economically-inept.
Miliband Major, had he led the party, would have faced exactly the same issues regarding the questioning of Labour's economic competence, and would have been similarly limited in what he could have done to rebut that questioning.
It's nothing to do with too left-wing or not left-wing enough, and everything to do with being so obsessed with the big narrative that they spent no time protecting their reputation. The Tories had a two year run-up to 2010 to lay the basis of their economic incompetence narrative, and then - wonder of wonders for Smith Square - the Labour Party, including both Milibands, played to that narrative by agreeing that they'd been incompetent, rather than exposing the roots of the problem.
They failed because their credentials didn't hold up against a narrative that had 7 years to ferment.
So explain why it's bonkers. Not just this simplistic "because it's left" crap you keep spouting, or your regurgitation of the commentariat, but some actual political analysis that doesn't begin and end with soundbites culled from an Economist editorial.
They have a majority of 6 seats. You thick cunt.the Tories are so dominant that veering left or right is immaterial.
They have a majority of 6 seats. You thick cunt.
Ed Milliband ran on a left platform? Say what now? Did I miss something?
...what the general election at least seems to indicate is that the electorate bought much more into the Tory prospectus, which, by the way, was extremely radically right-wing as against the Labour prospectus, which, by modern electoral standards, definitely is left-wing.
You didn't really understand that argument did you?
Have another think.
e2a - as a basic clue, it's about perception, a difficult idea for most morons because it involves them struggling to walk any distance in someone else's shoes...
I honestly can't understand this conviction that Ed MildlyBland ran on a left platform, except if your only experience of "left" politics was quantified around Labour's piss-weak Parliamentary red Toryism of the last 20 years.
Fuck off you thick cunt.You didn't really understand that argument did you?
Have another think.
e2a - as a basic clue, it's about perception, a difficult idea for most morons because it involves them struggling to walk any distance in someone else's shoes...
e2a no.2 - I notice that you've gone down the selective quotation route yet again so that almost guarantees that you won't ever be able to get it such are your blinkers.
OK, I need to retreat here, admittedly. We are talking about a counterfactual hypothetical and it is always difficult to be 100% certain about these things.
However, what the general election at least seems to indicate is that the electorate bought much more into the Tory prospectus, which, by the way, was extremely radically right-wing as against the Labour prospectus, which, by modern electoral standards, definitely is left-wing.
Miliband major is to the right of his brother. He is a centrist.
Miliband minor is not.
To pretend that their respective leaderships would have lead to the same outcome is to come to a pretty odd conclusion altogether and one that is especially worrying for those who identify as centre-left (as do I) or categorically left-wing (as I get the impression that many people here do), and that conclusion is simple - it doesn't matter what Labour does, the Tories are so dominant that veering left or right is immaterial.
Fuck off you thick cunt.OK, let's step through this.
First, what were the alternatives to Miliband minor within Labour and were they (i) more or (ii) less leftwing?
Second, what were the alternatives to Labour as a whole that were more leftwing and how did they do at the election and why?
Considering that only 24% of eligible voters actually voted for the Tories, couldn't the argument be made that it is the nature of the electoral system that led to a Conservative majority rather than that voters "bought much more into the Tory prospectus"?
Fuck off you thick cunt.This "eligible voter" argument is really, really pernicious.
It subtly veers down vaguely conspiraloon thinking and is very dangerous, being one of the easiest ways to persuade yourself that the whole election was fundamentally gamed.