Obviously. of course if you weren't biased you might check how many are based on Corbyn policies completely or in part. Only 7/20 are original ideas according to the mirror (not my usual source) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... es-8502852
If only we had less unthinking drone behaviour like yours, we might have a far better democracy...
Obviously. of course if you weren't biased you might check how many are based on Corbyn policies completely or in part. Only 7/20 are original ideas according to the mirror (not my usual source) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... es-8502852
If only we had less unthinking drone behaviour like yours, we might have a far better democracy...
Zhivago wrote:It's pathetic and depressing how consistently the Right's propaganda is propagated by the same posters on here without any critical examination whatsoever. I guess due to confirmation bias they automatically accept that in tune with their pre-programmed ideology.
Zhivago wrote:It's pathetic and depressing how consistently the Right's propaganda is propagated by the same posters on here without any critical examination whatsoever. I guess due to confirmation bias they automatically accept that in tune with their pre-programmed ideology.
You can laugh and condescend all you want but the fact is that you all parrot the narrative of the authorities no matter what.
And when it becomes unsustainable you apologise for them. And then you attack the naysayers.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Zhivago wrote:It's pathetic and depressing how consistently the Right's propaganda is propagated by the same posters on here without any critical examination whatsoever. I guess due to confirmation bias they automatically accept that in tune with their pre-programmed ideology.
You can laugh and condescend all you want but the fact is that you all parrot the narrative of the authorities no matter what.
And when it becomes unsustainable you apologise for them. And then you attack the naysayers.
You're right, I can laugh. Very loudly and at great length. I'm laughing right now as it happens.
Zhivago wrote:
Obviously. of course if you weren't biased you might check how many are based on Corbyn policies completely or in part. Only 7/20 are original ideas according to the mirror (not my usual source) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... es-8502852
If only we had less unthinking drone behaviour like yours, we might have a far better democracy...
You really must learn the difference between slogans and policies.
Get over yourself - Definition of a policy "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual." Describes perfectly what you just mocked as slogans.
Zhivago wrote:
Obviously. of course if you weren't biased you might check how many are based on Corbyn policies completely or in part. Only 7/20 are original ideas according to the mirror (not my usual source) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... es-8502852
If only we had less unthinking drone behaviour like yours, we might have a far better democracy...
"Owen Smith might happen to simply agree with Jeremy Corbyn on a lot of things. But if the latter is the problem for Labour, why is Mr Smith so keen on copying him? "
In what universe do they think they'll persuade a court that they're the real Labour party despite splitting away from the Labour Party? Some of these people are proper idiots.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
In what universe do they think they'll persuade a court that they're the real Labour party despite splitting away from the Labour Party? Some of these people are proper idiots.
Smells like desperation to me. And a fear of actually starting a new party.
If that does happen, the May must surely consider an early election. With her honeymoon period still in effect and the opposition totally hopeless, the idea of forcing an election and making her troublesome backbenchers less of a problem must be a real temptation.
The only snag is that with the Brexit negotiations due to start and urgent planning needed, the interruption caused by a GE could be a real distraction.
Home ownership in England has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years as the growing gap between earnings and property prices has created a housing crisis that extends beyond London to cities including Manchester.
The figure is the lowest since 1986, when home ownership levels were on the way up, with a housing market boom fuelled by the deregulation of the mortgage industry and the introduction of the right-to-buy policy for council homes by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government.
In the early years of the millennium, homeownership levels rose as buyers able to take out mortgages with no deposit scrambled to get on the ladder before prices became unaffordable. At that point the average cost of a UK property was £122,748 and growing at a rate of 20% a year, according to Nationwide Building Society, and banks and building societies were keen to lend.
But numbers started to drop as properties became less affordable and the downward trend continued as the housing market crashed after the credit crunch in 2008. The return of mortgages for borrowers with small deposits has brought first-time buyers back to the market, but the analysis underlines how great the struggle is to meet today’s new high house prices. According to Nationwide, the UK average had risen to £196,930 in February – a 60% increase in 13 years.
Zhivago wrote:
Nice audience reaction when Owen Smith claims he didn't partake in the coup.
I'll go out on a limb on and guess they weren't happy to see someone try to unseat the Glorious Leader® in a manner in which the Glorious Leader® himself tried to usurp leader after leader. It's just possible such hyprocrisy will not play well with the electorate, though the fundamentalist regime sweeping Labour seems oblivious to the idea they'll need some votes.
Zhivago wrote:
Nice audience reaction when Owen Smith claims he didn't partake in the coup.
I'll go out on a limb on and guess they weren't happy to see someone try to unseat the Glorious Leader® in a manner in which the Glorious Leader® himself tried to usurp leader after leader. It's just possible such hyprocrisy will not play well with the electorate, though the fundamentalist regime sweeping Labour seems oblivious to the idea they'll need some votes.
Latest polls show labour flagging hugely. But that's all right in the students union politics of labour today, it's all about purity of protest.
Zhivago wrote:
Nice audience reaction when Owen Smith claims he didn't partake in the coup.
I'll go out on a limb on and guess they weren't happy to see someone try to unseat the Glorious Leader® in a manner in which the Glorious Leader® himself tried to usurp leader after leader. It's just possible such hyprocrisy will not play well with the electorate, though the fundamentalist regime sweeping Labour seems oblivious to the idea they'll need some votes.
Latest polls show labour flagging hugely. But that's all right in the students union politics of labour today, it's all about purity of protest.
You don't have a single clue about the motivations of these people.
They are on an intellectual level far beyond your understanding.
Your attempts to condescend to people with far higher intellectual capacity than your obvious limits just makes you look like an adolescent dick.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Digby wrote:
I'll go out on a limb on and guess they weren't happy to see someone try to unseat the Glorious Leader® in a manner in which the Glorious Leader® himself tried to usurp leader after leader. It's just possible such hyprocrisy will not play well with the electorate, though the fundamentalist regime sweeping Labour seems oblivious to the idea they'll need some votes.
Latest polls show labour flagging hugely. But that's all right in the students union politics of labour today, it's all about purity of protest.
You don't have a single clue about the motivations of these people.
They are on an intellectual level far beyond your understanding.
Your attempts to condescend to people with far higher intellectual capacity than your obvious limits just makes you look like an adolescent dick.
Classic UG. I'm right, everyone else is wrong, or just plain thick.
Sandydragon wrote:
Latest polls show labour flagging hugely. But that's all right in the students union politics of labour today, it's all about purity of protest.
You don't have a single clue about the motivations of these people.
They are on an intellectual level far beyond your understanding.
Your attempts to condescend to people with far higher intellectual capacity than your obvious limits just makes you look like an adolescent dick.
Classic UG. I'm right, everyone else is wrong, or just plain thick.
Awesome argument.
What irony, given your condescension to Corbyn and his supporters that my comment addressed.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Sandydragon wrote:
Classic UG. I'm right, everyone else is wrong, or just plain thick.
Awesome argument.
What irony, given your condescension to Corbyn and his supporters that my comment addressed.
You might want to check your green house for cracks in the glass.
In fairness to the Glorious Leader® he has a plan to invest in some rather pricey stained glass for the greenhouse, and then he's going to start throwing stones.
What irony, given your condescension to Corbyn and his supporters that my comment addressed.
You might want to check your green house for cracks in the glass.
In fairness to the Glorious Leader® he has a plan to invest in some rather pricey stained glass for the greenhouse, and then he's going to start throwing stones.
This is just the sort of polite intellectual discussion that Sandy is looking for here in the politics section of RR.
And we, the plebs, are not allowed to call you fascists.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
