BoroFur
Well-known member
Thanks for admitting you've insulted me but aren't prepared to remedy the situation
If you can find an example of me calling you a Tory in the past I'll certainly apologise.
Keir Starmer - FoM now a red-line
- Thread starter Scrote
- Start date
If you can find an example of me calling you a Tory in the past I'll certainly apologise.
If I get snarky with you it means that I like you mate. Don't take it to heart.
I have to disagree with you on that second paragraph. Of course the internal party stuff matters. Starmer's interference in selection procedures and peeing off the left and the unions is a pretty huge deal. Why would those people you mentioned never dream of voting for Corbyn? Because they believed all of the lies and the bullsh*t in the press? That sounds about right. People are idiots. You can't trust their judgement. They voted for Brexit and they voted for Johnson. Bunch of f*ckwits.
We've needed The Tories out for a very long time. It hasn't suddenly become a priority now that you have your man in charge.
I can't back a liar who I have no faith in so I won't be voting Labour anytime soon.
I thought we'd gone beyond this now mate. You know me better than that. I wasn't trying to insult you. Sorry if it came across that way.Thanks for admitting you've insulted me but aren't prepared to remedy the situation
If you can find an example of me calling you a Tory in the past I'll certainly apologise.
festa5
Well-known member
I've said similar myself on here more than once. In some ways Corbyn of course wasn't weak. To withstand the personal character assassination he did must have taken a lot.
In other ways, I agree he was too easily led. E.g. by the media screaming "Stalinist purge" when he wanted to make the party more democratic with mandatory reselection.
Forget all that though, I know for you centrist geezers the imaginary version of what people have said is more important!
Yeah I don't think he was weak.
His problem was he was too honest and too idealistic. He needed to play the game a bit. Probably not too much, because a big part of his appeal was his honesty and authenticity. But a lot of the issues people had with Corbyn could have been largely headed off, or at least mitigated, if he was just a bit better at playing politics. As depressing as it is.
I do think Starmer is over correcting that. He plays the game too much for me. I don't know what he thinks because he's borderline paranoid about the right wing media. Maybe with some justification, but the Tories are in such a mess I think he can afford to be bolder.
I just think he's scared to lose at this point. It'll probably be enough. Labour may yet win very convincingly even. But the narrative coming from them is disappointing.
As you know they'll have my vote, but it's a vote against this vile government. Not for Labour as things stand. They're currently taking a lot of people for granted and they need to be careful about far they push that.
Scrote
Well-known member
Which is why I started by saying you weren't prepared to discuss the reasoning. If you had then you'd have understood the position. You decided to follow the media lie that it was muddy because it suited your political position. No shame in that. But at least be honest about it.
I didn't say I couldn't. I asked why I should when you clearly didn't as per the above.
Again, I didn't say I was unwilling. I asked why I should do something you weren't prepared to do.
Which parts of the manifesto were you against in 2017 and 2019?
What wasn't in the manfesto that you wanted to see?
I posted some explainers on here at the time. It was more complicated than "Me Tarzan, you Jane" but it made perfect sense to anyone with a grasp of primary school level logic problems.
It was a direct reference to the Centrist mantra when they were telling us how much better they would be than Corbyn. I'm glad you found them patronising and condescending. Something we can agree on at last.
BoroFur
Well-known member
How could Labour under Jeremy Corbyn ever hope to be elected when there's folk like you around? I mean seriously, you have such a high opinion of yourself and such a disrespectful attitude towards others. I'm sure someone will bring up something I've said in the past but it won't be as arrogant or as pretentious as what you've said above. You're actually a political snob.
Bumface reckons you've ripped me apart on this thread. I reckon you've merely stooped to the lowest form of wit. If you're not extremely successful in you career, are in fine health, have a lovely partner and family and have a big house with a couple of nice cars on the drive then you're seriously underachieving in comparison to your messageboard persona.
It's Steve to you BoroFur. You don't have to call me bumface. You're not one of my subjects.
I think that you're a bit OTT here. No need for that mate.
Scrote
Well-known member
I've asked why you think I should take the time to understand Starmer's nuanced position vs the headlines and your response is to attack me, personally?
Stay classy.
BoroFur
Well-known member
Scrote
Well-known member
That would imply I've called you something. Which I haven't, as far as I'm aware.
Have you taken offence at something in particular or do you just not like being asked for an answer on questions that arise from things you post?
BoroFur
Well-known member
As you don't know me I resent your inferences that I'm thick. The references to "You Tarzan, me Jane", primary school level logic problems and of course your patronising and condescending attitude toward me which you freely admit.
But of course you knew I would take offence.
Everyone on here knows that I'm a Steve mate. We're a dying breed. Nobody calls their kid Steve these days.
there are more infants called Bumface
gregorgregorovich
Well-known member
I'm a Steve as well, our young Buttockfizzog will be gutted that more infants aren't being given the same name.
Scrote
Well-known member
I genuinely can't tell if this is satire.
You suggested that the reference to "grown up" was patronising and condescending. It was a direct reference to quotes from Starmer, Chukka Ummuna and the rest of Centrist central when they were telling us how much more serious they were than the left under Corbyn (link below for one example). If you didn't know this then fair enough. However, I did make it clear it was a joke in the first instance and then explained where it came from in the follow up post.
How you infer that I've admitted directing it at you is beyond me.
The line about logic problems is a direct response to you declaring something to be as murky as ditchwater. I was quite clearly suggesting it was the opposite. If you want to take that as a personal slight then feel free. If you honestly couldn't understand Labour's position* then maybe the cap fits.
* Labour's position:
1. No "no deal" Brexit
2. Negotiate the best deal possible with the EU
3. Explain the deal and the ramifications to the public
4. Allow the public to choose between the available deal or Remain
It had the added benefit of being politically astute in that anyone (Farage et al) saying a better deal was available would be called to put up or shut up.
Crystal clear but nuanced.
The Independent
Last edited:
BoroFur
Well-known member
You win mate, I can't compete with someone who comes back on the board in the early hours of the morning to edit their post. Well done
I'm afraid I have to disagree with the astuteness claim. In my opinion, many voters regarded much of the 'nuance' as camouflage, went straight to point 4, and saw, with crystal clarity, that Labour was prepared to overturn the referendum result. They voted accordingly.
viv_andersons_nana
Well-known member
He’s on about being open to tagging asylum seekers and refugees now. What a lovely chap he sounds.
It feeds into everything I said earlier on in thread. I just don’t feel comfortable voting for someone who talks like this. Tagging refugees FFS. It’s just, well, what is it really. It’s disgusting. Let’s be honest.
Where are his actual ‘red lines’ here? Because he doesn’t appear to have any at all. And all to appease the Tory press and some floating voters. Nice one.
It feeds into everything I said earlier on in thread. I just don’t feel comfortable voting for someone who talks like this. Tagging refugees FFS. It’s just, well, what is it really. It’s disgusting. Let’s be honest.
Where are his actual ‘red lines’ here? Because he doesn’t appear to have any at all. And all to appease the Tory press and some floating voters. Nice one.
Scrote
Well-known member
You win mate, I can't compete with someone who comes back on the board in the early hours of the morning to edit their post. Well done
If you'd read the thread before I edited it then you'd know that I removed the character "0" from after a fullstop (I think it was at the end of the last sentence i.e. "...or shut up.0").
While I tidied that up I decided to change the word "arrange" to the word "negotiate" in point 2 because it made it clearer without changing the meaning.
If you didn't read the thread before I changed it then I don't see how it's a problem, even if I changed the whole thing, as you won't have responded to an earlier version.
If you replied to an earlier version then the text would be in your reply and it would be clear that I changed something.
This just strikes me as more evidence that you aren't discussing this in good faith.
If there are any typos in here (usually from autocorrect), I'll probably fix them later too.
Just to be clare.
Last edited:
Laughing
Well-known member
Shouldn't folks agree to disagree? We all have our belief when it comes to political leaders and no one is going to change them. I see quite a lot of comments that are either given with no context or the wrong context deliberately used. It's not very honest when it comes to debate. I get passions run high, but come on guys we are better than this, aren't we?