8 June

[????]

The Farron thing makes me laugh...to quote someone on Twitter..

"Tim Farron hasn't ever taken any money from the propaganda arm of a regime that hangs gay people from cranes"

Unlike?......you fill in the blanks

*edited to add the cranes bit

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Farron has categorically stated that he doesn't think homosexuality is evil. He also voted for gay marriage. This whole line of questioning is a Tory tactic to attempt to undermine what they clearly regard as a threat to the landslide they want.

And, I should say for the record, I am not a Tory-basher - I don't believe in political partisanship.

[Otta]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I too have some doubts over Farron due to his

> potentially odd beliefs, and would welcome a bit

> of clarity.

For the record, I couldn't give a shit if he thinks gay sex is a sin or not, I think it's completely irrelevent so long as he fights for equality.

But when I think of evangelical types, I think of how Glen Hoddle lost the England job, andI worry about that sort of nonsense.

[????]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Farron has categorically stated that he doesn't

> think homosexuality is evil. He also voted for

> gay marriage. This whole line of questioning is a

> Tory tactic to attempt to undermine what they

> clearly regard as a threat to the landslide they

> want.

>

> And, I should say for the record, I am not a

> Tory-basher - I don't believe in political

> partisanship.

Oh is that right? You clearly mean the well planned Tory tactic been executed by those well know tory attack dogs - Owen Jones and John McDonnell and various other lefty lovies...but blame the tories eh, how very unpartisan ship of you......

[Seabag]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> don't you think that Corbyn actually has any

> awareness that he's destroying the Labour party?

>

> If he stepped down before June 8 it would be a

> different playing field.

No, quite the opposite, he has "the mandate". He's puffed up by the team around him. And bearing in mind they'll never ever likely be in this positions again, they're going for 'it'

What 'it' is, nobody's sure.

I hope that's cleared things up.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

.

[malumbu]

Bit lost here. Not sure why rocks are being thrown at Farron. I'm perfectly comfortable with same sex relationships but it's taken a long time to totally get to this point (always tolerent I hasten to add since my late teens). I've moved with (and generally ahead) of society. But society is not there yet.

Yet we are in a world where no major footballer is comfortable coming out. I expect that there is greater homophobia in the Tory office (hardly traditional values) and similarly their backers in the black and red top media. Faith flag and country and all that stuff. Have some dirt on one senior, who reminds me of Alan B'stard.

The world is bad enough without having to look for dirt on people who are generally pushing the right way.

[Loz]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I expect that there is greater homophobia in the Tory office (hardly

> traditional values) and similarly their backers in the black and red top media.

You might 'expect' that, but I believe that the Tories fielded more LGBT candidates than Labour in 2015 and had more gay MPs than Labour until 2015. So, like for female leaders, Labour wrings its hands and frets about identity politics but actually achieves little.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I too have some doubts over Farron due to his

> > potentially odd beliefs, and would welcome a

> bit

> > of clarity.

>

>

> For the record, I couldn't give a shit if he

> thinks gay sex is a sin or not, I think it's

> completely irrelevent so long as he fights for

> equality.

But he doesn't: he abstained on the last and crucial Equal Marriage vote because of his religious objections. He wants to have it both ways: to say his religion doesn't affect his politics, and then makes political decisions on the basis of his religious views. Lib Dem zealots (word used intentionally) have a blind spot on this.

May has the opposite tack: profess religion but don't evidence it in any appreciable political sense.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> malumbu Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I expect that there is greater homophobia in the

> Tory office (hardly

> > traditional values) and similarly their backers

> in the black and red top media.

>

> You might 'expect' that, but I believe that the

> Tories fielded more LGBT candidates than Labour in

> 2015 and had more gay MPs than Labour until 2015.

> So, like for female leaders, Labour wrings its

> hands and frets about identity politics but

> actually achieves little.

With reference to the last election, no they didn't: Labour had 35 LGBT candidates, as did the LibDems, with the Tories fielding 28, Greens 25, others 10. It was also notable that the Tories didn't run LGBT candidates in any of their safe seats or winnable marginals, unlike the other parties. Labour now has 13 openly LGBT MPs and the Tories 12. So your last sentence is nonsense.

[Jules-and-Boo]

so are we now voting based on sexual preference/ tolerance?

If that were the criteria, probably more of the electorate would show up.

I am going to the bookies on a low turn out, vapourisation of the Labour party (Corbyn - just give up - left-left is not working) and Coalition of Tories/ Lib Dems (meaning years of fighting)

[Louisa]

Malumbu "pushing the right way" isn't good enough if you are experiencing institutionalised negativity detrimental to your living standards and options you have at the ballot box. If as a minority you are dealing with underhanded crap most days of your life, little remarks, people professing to being in your corner to your face and then doing the opposite when the fairytales written in a 2,000 year old book control their moral compass ultimately, you surely have a right as logical and free thinking person to object that? Search for something better.

Louisa.

[Jenny1]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> May has the opposite tack: profess religion but

> don't evidence it in any appreciable political

> sense.

But you see I think she does 'evidence' it - in a very concerning (if not at all 'moral') way.

As I said before I grew up attending a C of E church. I now see the Church (like most things) as having good and not so good aspects to it. Some of the most admirable people I know are active Christians (of various different denominations) who put their moral values into practise. They help out where they see need, make a positive difference to the communities they live in and are open to the views and experiences of others. Of course I also know practising Muslims and Hindus who achieve precisely that as well.

But - as I said before - there's a reason why the Church of England has often been called 'The Tory Party at prayer'. As a child I also saw the much less attractive establishment, feudal side of it. Special pews were still reserved, even in the 1970s, for the grandees of the community. There was an understanding that you would be accepted if you followed the rules, didn't question anything and 'fitted in' - which usually meant 'knowing your place' socially. That's the side of the C of E I'm reminded of when Mrs May invokes it. The side that says 'it's not up to you to have any ideas of your own - simply to follow blindly the man (or in this case woman) who's in charge'. 'Pack your poor little brain away and relax in the knowledge that I'm 'all knowing' and can be left to make all the decisions'.

That's what I mean when I say I believe Mrs May has delusions of being the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury - but with an added political edge of course. In one breath she invokes the Church of England - in the next she says anyone who opposes her must be weeded out - in fact that that very dissent is in itself a 'bad' thing ('heresy' in fact). She's using established religion as a powerful tool in her authoritarian political armoury. That's dangerous.

[keano77]

Interesting thought from Tom Newton Dunn (Sun political editor) on Sky News paper review last night.

If Labour wiped out in local elections Corbyn could be replaced two weeks before General Election. A new leader might make a big difference to Labour's fortunes.

David Milliband comeback?

[titch juicy]

Wouldn't be at all surprised to see Yvette Cooper as next Labour leader.

[JohnL]

Corbyn made a good (for him) speech today - but you expect it as campaigning is his thing.

He won't do enough to close the gap (he might close it a bit) - but will do enough to stay as Labour leader - you wait ;)

[hiit]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wouldn't be at all surprised to see Yvette Cooper

> as next Labour leader.

She did brilliantly in PMQs yesterday. Or what about David Miliband standing as an independent for Dulwich and West Norwood on the soft Brexit ticket, defecting to the Labour party if he's elected...? Desperate times etc etc etc.

[malumbu]

Ordinary working families, ordinary working families. Aghhh

what we need is stable leadership. What we need is stable leadership. Aghhhh.

Why wasn't she showing such leadership when we needed one to remain in the EU. Aghhhh.

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Otta]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wouldn't be at all surprised to see Yvette Cooper

> as next Labour leader.

Let's hope so. She was my original choice in 2015, and I wish I'd stuck with her. Not that it would have made a difference, but I'd sleep better.

[????]

Most of the Labour MPs standing down are decent ones and meanwhile the rumours (Telegraph) are Corbyn's son is going to be given a safe seat! If true, so much for fighting against a rigged system and elites and the other Spartist student nonsense he was spouting this morning!

[maxxi]

Of all the things of import to be annoyed by now we are in election mode; Mr Corbyn's I-did-speech-classes habit of using the 'magic of three' repetition trick is getting very irritating-

"You can't get blah without blah..blah..blah

You can't get blah without blah blah.. blah

And you can't get blah without blah..blah and BLAH! " (the crowd take their cue to cheer and applaud).

"It is true to say that... etc ...etc

It is true to say that... etc... etc

And it is true to say that etc ...ETC!" (the crowd take their cue to etc...etc)

Stop it man

Stop it now

Stop it for good! (cheers, etc...)

[JoeLeg]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Most of the Labour MPs standing down are decent

> ones and meanwhile the rumours (Telegraph) are

> Corbyn's son is going to be given a safe seat! If

> true, so much for fighting against a rigged system

> and elites and the other Spartist student nonsense

> he was spouting this morning!

Our MP, Jim Dowd is going, which is a shame. He's a good guy, and I'll be interested to see if they parachute someone into what is (or should be) a pretty safe Labour seat. I'm be annoyed if we get some Momentum-mouthpiece.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > malumbu Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > I expect that there is greater homophobia in the Tory office (hardly

> > > traditional values) and similarly their backers in the black and red top media.

> >

> > You might 'expect' that, but I believe that the Tories fielded more LGBT candidates than Labour in

> > 2015 and had more gay MPs than Labour until 2015. So, like for female leaders, Labour wrings its

> > hands and frets about identity politics but actually achieves little.

>

>

> With reference to the last election, no they didn't: Labour had 35 LGBT candidates, as did the

> LibDems, with the Tories fielding 28, Greens 25, others 10. It was also notable that the Tories

> didn't run LGBT candidates in any of their safe seats or winnable marginals, unlike the other

> parties. Labour now has 13 openly LGBT MPs and the Tories 12. So your last sentence is nonsense.

Not at all. Here's the data I used.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/events/events-archive/Andrew_Reynolds_slides.pdf (slide 7)

Which also clearly says "LGBT candidates not disproportionality in unwinnable seats." (slide 14)

And - to correct myself - the Tories still have more LGBT MPs, but less as a proposition of total MPs. (slide 4)

Either way, malumbu's proposition doesn't stack up.

[Blah Blah]

If Corbyn parachutes his son into a safe seat then he loses all credibility imo. Momentum are on the rocks too, split down the middle between Lansman and the hard left who have essentially been sidelined, as being a member of Momentum now requires also being a member of the Labour Party - a direct move to keep out those expelled former party members who were slowly starting to take over Momentum.

I too wish I'd stuck with Yvette Cooper Otta, and on having the chance to chat with her recently, only felt that more. She really made Teresa may squirm at PMQs in a way that Corbyn failed to do so. And she was right. You can not trust anything Teresa May says. Political expediency is a primary requirement of being a Tory MP.

The real fear here is twofold. The Tories will make this an election on Brexit, as too will the Libdems. They both will pick up seats from Labour. Corbyn has decided that a range of other issues are more important, but yet again, I think he has misjudged the public mood. You can bet that the Tories will field pro brexit candidates in those marginals they seek to gain that voted leave.

And then there is everything else that is at risk. We will see further decimation of public services, further privatisation of the NHS, further cuts to welfare and that pension triple lock is probably no longer safe either. With an increased majority and these things as part of a manifesto, there will be nothing to stop them. What the Tories write in their Manifesto is extremely important. Cameron and Osborne deliberately left detail out of theirs, which is why they ran into trouble over tax credits and why Hammond ran into trouble over NI rises for the self employed. I would expect both of those things to be back on the table with an increased majority. And there will be people who swing to vote Tory, to ensure they get Brexit, who will be asking why they voted for all the other stuff when the impacts hit them.

In that sense Corbyn is right to raise all the other issues, but his style is to speak from a revolutionary stance, and people are turned off by that. I get the sense that no-one is really listening to him. And he doesn't like engaging with MSM either.

On Farron and his evangelical views. It's hard to know if that will impact on him. I suspect it's likely to have more of an impact on younger voters than older ones.

[red devil]

100...:)