Zhivago wrote:So final results in - Tories lost double the seats Labour did
Sitting governments always lose mid term council elections. A competent labour leader would have actually won seats.
But please, keep Corbyn where he is and roll on 2020.
Yes yes, I think you copied that line from the Torygraph or one of the others. Pity you are incapable of independent thinking. But then I expect nothing different from a machine man with a machine mind and a machine heart.
Zhivago wrote:So final results in - Tories lost double the seats Labour did
Sitting governments always lose mid term council elections. A competent labour leader would have actually won seats.
But please, keep Corbyn where he is and roll on 2020.
Can you honestly say that you'd like to see the continuation of this tory administration?
If so please can you list for me what things you think they have done... or are doing well...
Yes I can. There is no effective opposition. If you want to win a general election, then it's normally considered a good thing to build some mo entomology in local elections between the main event. Evenin 98 the Tories took seats off the Blair government who were still very popular.
Whilst Corbyn didn't plumb to Michael Foot depths, this wasn't a success for him. Aside from the London mayor result, it was a sign if a party that isn't trusted by the electorate at large. The less said about the Scotland result from a labour perspective the better.
Zhivago wrote:So final results in - Tories lost double the seats Labour did
Sitting governments always lose mid term council elections. A competent labour leader would have actually won seats.
But please, keep Corbyn where he is and roll on 2020.
Yes yes, I think you copied that line from the Torygraph or one of the others. Pity you are incapable of independent thinking. But then I expect nothing different from a machine man with a machine mind and a machine heart.
I suggest you look at some past facts and figures for local elections and how they tend to pan out for numb ant governments. If you think last Thursday's result was a success for the Labour Party then it's you who is overdosing on propaganda.
Try dealing in facts rather than playing the poster.
Sandydragon wrote:
Sitting governments always lose mid term council elections. A competent labour leader would have actually won seats.
But please, keep Corbyn where he is and roll on 2020.
Yes yes, I think you copied that line from the Torygraph or one of the others. Pity you are incapable of independent thinking. But then I expect nothing different from a machine man with a machine mind and a machine heart.
I suggest you look at some past facts and figures for local elections and how they tend to pan out for numb ant governments. If you think last Thursday's result was a success for the Labour Party then it's you who is overdosing on propaganda.
Try dealing in facts rather than playing the poster.
Facts are used extensively in propaganda. Like when the facts that you state rely on excluding context, adding in exceptions and criteria so as to come to the pattern that is desired.
Here's another fact:
Corbyn's Labour won 47.9% of the seats up for election.
When Cameron was just made leader and had his first local election, the conservatives won only 41.4% of the seats up for election.
Zhivago wrote:
Yes yes, I think you copied that line from the Torygraph or one of the others. Pity you are incapable of independent thinking. But then I expect nothing different from a machine man with a machine mind and a machine heart.
I suggest you look at some past facts and figures for local elections and how they tend to pan out for numb ant governments. If you think last Thursday's result was a success for the Labour Party then it's you who is overdosing on propaganda.
Try dealing in facts rather than playing the poster.
Facts are used extensively in propaganda. Like when the facts that you state rely on excluding context, adding in exceptions and criteria so as to come to the pattern that is desired.
Here's another fact:
Corbyn's Labour won 47.9% of the seats up for election.
When Cameron was just made leader and had his first local election, the conservatives won only 41.4% of the seats up for election.
Like those facts?
Are you referring to the same local elections where Cameron's conservatives won over 300 seats? Meanwhile Blair lost over 300.
And you mention context, good grief.
Fact, Cameron took hundreds of seats and almost a dozen counsellors from the sitting government. Corbyn, up against a second term prime minister, made no impact at all.
Sandydragon wrote:
Sitting governments always lose mid term council elections. A competent labour leader would have actually won seats.
But please, keep Corbyn where he is and roll on 2020.
Can you honestly say that you'd like to see the continuation of this tory administration?
If so please can you list for me what things you think they have done... or are doing well...
Yes I can. There is no effective opposition. If you want to win a general election, then it's normally considered a good thing to build some mo entomology in local elections between the main event. Evenin 98 the Tories took seats off the Blair government who were still very popular.
Whilst Corbyn didn't plumb to Michael Foot depths, this wasn't a success for him. Aside from the London mayor result, it was a sign if a party that isn't trusted by the electorate at large. The less said about the Scotland result from a labour perspective the better.
Face some reality, Corbyn is unelectable.
Well go on then.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
That would be the same election where the Tories gained 11 new councils? You do know Kamber that Corbyn needs a percentage swing of over 9 percent? And this is without any meaningful labour representation n Scotland.
Again, open your eyes to the lack of impact that Corbyn is having on the wider electorate, I.e. Beyond the membership of th Labour Party, and the evaluate labours chances in the next general election. It's noT surprising that labour MPs are bricking it.
Stooo wrote:
Can you honestly say that you'd like to see the continuation of this tory administration?
If so please can you list for me what things you think they have done... or are doing well...
Yes I can. There is no effective opposition. If you want to win a general election, then it's normally considered a good thing to build some mo entomology in local elections between the main event. Evenin 98 the Tories took seats off the Blair government who were still very popular.
Whilst Corbyn didn't plumb to Michael Foot depths, this wasn't a success for him. Aside from the London mayor result, it was a sign if a party that isn't trusted by the electorate at large. The less said about the Scotland result from a labour perspective the better.
Face some reality, Corbyn is unelectable.
Well go on then.
Living wage.
Greater financing for students from poorer families.
EU referendum delivered.
Sandydragon wrote:
Yes I can. There is no effective opposition. If you want to win a general election, then it's normally considered a good thing to build some mo entomology in local elections between the main event. Evenin 98 the Tories took seats off the Blair government who were still very popular.
Whilst Corbyn didn't plumb to Michael Foot depths, this wasn't a success for him. Aside from the London mayor result, it was a sign if a party that isn't trusted by the electorate at large. The less said about the Scotland result from a labour perspective the better.
Face some reality, Corbyn is unelectable.
Well go on then.
Living wage.
Greater financing for students from poorer families.
EU referendum delivered.
Almost forgot, increased number of apprenticeships.
There has also been an increase in th number of nurses and doctors in the NHS.
Sandydragon wrote:
Yes I can. There is no effective opposition. If you want to win a general election, then it's normally considered a good thing to build some mo entomology in local elections between the main event. Evenin 98 the Tories took seats off the Blair government who were still very popular.
Whilst Corbyn didn't plumb to Michael Foot depths, this wasn't a success for him. Aside from the London mayor result, it was a sign if a party that isn't trusted by the electorate at large. The less said about the Scotland result from a labour perspective the better.
Face some reality, Corbyn is unelectable.
Well go on then.
Living wage.
Greater financing for students from poorer families.
EU referendum delivered.
A sick joke.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Living wage.
Greater financing for students from poorer families.
EU referendum delivered.
A sick joke.
Plenty disagree. You asked for accomplishments, this is a significant move forward to help poorer families and compares well to anything Labour managed in over a decade.
Sandydragon wrote:
Living wage.
Greater financing for students from poorer families.
EU referendum delivered.
A sick joke.
Plenty disagree. You asked for accomplishments, this is a significant move forward to help poorer families and compares well to anything Labour managed in over a decade.
No it isn't. It's a cynical marketing ploy to detract from the reality of their economic plan that will reduce living standards for all but the very wealthy.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Plenty disagree. You asked for accomplishments, this is a significant move forward to help poorer families and compares well to anything Labour managed in over a decade.
No it isn't. It's a cynical marketing ploy to detract from the reality of their economic plan that will reduce living standards for all but the very wealthy.
He's just a talking toucan parroting what his masters say. Best to ignore the twit.
Plenty disagree. You asked for accomplishments, this is a significant move forward to help poorer families and compares well to anything Labour managed in over a decade.
No it isn't. It's a cynical marketing ploy to detract from the reality of their economic plan that will reduce living standards for all but the very wealthy.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that those at the lowest levels of society have also seen an increase, particularly in pensioners.
Sandydragon wrote:
Plenty disagree. You asked for accomplishments, this is a significant move forward to help poorer families and compares well to anything Labour managed in over a decade.
No it isn't. It's a cynical marketing ploy to detract from the reality of their economic plan that will reduce living standards for all but the very wealthy.
He's just a talking toucan parroting what his masters say. Best to ignore the twit.
Oh dear, Kamber doesn't like it when someone argues back. Grow up junior.
Sandydragon wrote:
Plenty disagree. You asked for accomplishments, this is a significant move forward to help poorer families and compares well to anything Labour managed in over a decade.
No it isn't. It's a cynical marketing ploy to detract from the reality of their economic plan that will reduce living standards for all but the very wealthy.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that those at the lowest levels of society have also seen an increase, particularly in pensioners.
The IFS is a neoliberal propaganda factory. They are wrong about everything and their utterings can be safely dismissed as partisan nonsense.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:
No it isn't. It's a cynical marketing ploy to detract from the reality of their economic plan that will reduce living standards for all but the very wealthy.
He's just a talking toucan parroting what his masters say. Best to ignore the twit.
Oh dear, Kamber doesn't like it when someone argues back. Grow up junior.
Sandydragon wrote:
Oh dear, Kamber doesn't like it when someone argues back. Grow up junior.
Pointless trying to argue against dogma.
Or in other words , your smart statistic didn't have the effect you thought it might when put into clear context. Better luck next time.
My statistic was to show that such statements of 'fact' are meaningless without context. You accept facts that confirm your own beliefs and reject those that contradict. Confirmation bias.
My point to you was never that Corbyn's result was an unqualified success, as you'd reject that regardless of whatever facts I presented. Your rejection of facts which contradict your viewpoint and acceptance of those confirming was my entire point.
Sandydragon wrote:
Face some reality, Corbyn is unelectable.
I'd have thought that word would have lost currency of late. It's just a term the media use against those candidates they don't like or want to ignore.
Given Corbyn's success so far it's a black hole of a word in context.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
