Another picture. This is like being dribbled on by kids with down's syndrome.

Thanks for your contribution Jalfrezei, now go and play with your plasticine in the corner with the other special children.

Oh dear. Is this what your idea of Socialism is, using Down's syndrome as a pejorative? Shame on you.

Just for you, I'll rephrase that post using words, not a picture:


You sir, are a steaming pile of self-righteous hypocritical ****.

Now **** off. The Labour Party doesn't want or need the likes of you.

GBV, how often, when you're alone and not shouting at anyone, do you quietly consider to yourself that everything you believe is utter nonsense?

You are beyond tribal to the point of absolute hysteria.

Its very simple, in our electoral system a vote for X can actually help Y who is opposed to X.

Adults adjust their vote accordingly.

Children rant on about party loyalty.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7691911.html

lmao

Kinnock lost in 1987 and went on to fight (and lose) again in 1992, though there the similarities end because he was modernising the party and increasing its appeal.

If you can't take it don't dish it out.

Posting memes and pictures is considered trolling. You want to take it down to that level don't cry like a little girl because someone responds in kind.

Once again.

We had in election in 2010. Many people voted tactically for the Liberal Democrats in order to keep the Tories out. The Liberal Democrats subsequently propped up the Tories for five years.

If you vote Liberal Democrat in this election the only reasonable assumption is they will do the same thing in the event of a hung parliament.

What part of this do you not understand?

To be fair you were totally out of order with that post.

The most probable victory scenario for Labour is an appeal to the disaffected working class voter. There are precedents for this with Bernie Sanders in the US, Syriza in Greece and now Melenchon in France. There is a core constituency out there that could be converted but Corbyn is not reaching them.

The problem for Corbyn is that while his policies would appeal to these voters and are genuinely designed to help them, presentationally he isn't very effective at reaching them. By this I don't mean he lacks oratorical skills but those skills are more orientated towards middle-class voters.

I think if he got a good PR adviser and started using very simple, almost asinine Trump-style phrasing "The Tories want you pay to go your doctor!" the Tories would be in trouble. Additionally, he could start framing his policies to target the UKIP-ers without actually changing them. Things like support for a living wage have a negative impact on immigration but Corbyn would never mention that.

Additionally the attitudes towards of his own party towards him are a positive electoral advantage if he converts that into anti-establishment sentiment. Right now, they are a serious liability.

What I suspect will happen is that he will continue to appeal to the electorate's better nature only to discover that they don't have one.

What are you complaining about exactly? Were there too many words or something.

Someone's sore like a stuck pig that I roasted them earlier...

It is really sad what has happened to the right in this country.

It used to be the case that freemarket conservatives could debate issues and compete with and often surpass the most intelligent fabians and marxist intellectuals.

Nowadays Diebitter is pretty representative of the right. Sub-intellectual, tribalistic, animalistic, has the same attitude towards politics as a typical football thug. Impossible to debate with or reason with, they just endlessly repeat slogans they got thirdhand from the Mail. No empathy whatsoever or actual sadistic relish at the problems facing the working poor.

Post more stalkey-memes, you won't look like a butthurt loser or anything...

If your lack of values is anything to go by (using a children's disease as a pejorative), it's equally sad what's happened to the Left. You're a disgusting and self-righteous person and in case it's not obvious to you, the whole thread (as well as the Le Pen thread) is laughing at the childish, simplistic and often nonsensical stances you take every single time.

The Downs Syndrome stuff.
No need whatsoever.

You two lowered the tone of the argument with the meme posting. Now you are whining because you can't handle the response.

Don't Dish it out if you can't handle it. You are pathetic.

GBV is incapable of any kind of thinking that involves demarcation points. 1/0 is all he is capable of.

Posting a meme is not the same as calling someone a window licker.

If you people want a civil discussion then we can do that. You can start by answering the simple question I posted on the previous page: why is it that you expect the Liberal Democrats not to side with the Tories like they did last time? It is a reasonable question you ducked.

If you want to troll then you and your little Blairite friends should quit with the whining faux outrage when you try it and find out I'm better at it than you are.

You are so much better behaved elsewhere on the internet GBV.

Certainly not in the French politics thread.

I treat people with the respect they deserve.

I answered that question.

Intellectual honesty not another of your strong points.

Also again calling me a Blairite is just another demonstration of your 1/0 thinking.

However you have totally and utterly ducked the question of how people should vote in constituencies where Labour has no chance of winning and a vote for Labour is an effective vote for the Tories.

I thought my answer was clear by implication: vote Labour or whatever party you believe is best for the country.

Your assertion that a vote for Labour in LD/Tory marginal is a vote for the Tories does not bear up to rational analysis so far as I can see.

In most scenarios tactical voting will make no difference. It will only make a difference in a hung parliament.

A hung parliament is not likely. However, if it does occur, then the most probable scenario is one where the Tories are the largest single party. The Liberal Democrats will then do a deal with the Tories as they did in 2010.

The scenario in which a Liberal Democrat government forms an alliance with Labour as the largest party is less likely.

Therefore voting tactically for a Liberal is more likely to lead to a Tory government-as it did in 2010.

I'm not sure what scenario you are envisaging.

Perhaps you think a Tory/LD coalition is better than a straight Tory government.
My impression was that it made no practical difference at all. The LD's announced some successes in coalition but none of them looked like genuine concessions-it seemed that Cameron just used them as a scapegoat to placate the right of his party when he wanted to pass some centrist legislation, bolstering his own popularity.