Comments by "Iazzaboyce" (@Iazzaboyce) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

  1. ***** Of course it's a given that Tory MPs and their 'privatise publicly owned assets ideology' represents a majority of the electorate - in spite of the fact that 60% of said electorate consistently voted against privatisation of said assets. And of course it's a given that ' all veterans' are royalists'. Have you actually asked the war dead what they think? I don't think so! So shut up about what you presume they died for.
    1
  2. ***** You stated that the electorate did not share the opinion of Labour Party members. I pointed out that the electorate did not share the opinion of the Conservative Party members and provided evidence that this is the case on fundamental policy. There is also evidence that 70% now support reversal of that fundamental policy so the evidence shows the electorate fundamentally supports Corbyn. My grandfathers' and father's military service amounts to more than 60 years - they all voted Labour for the things Corbyn stands for.
    1
  3. autofreak7 We are yet to see whether a Labour Party manifesto written by Corbyn will be supported. You mention ordinary voters, but what about the millions that don't vote because there's been nothing to vote for? You mention the EU but it was Labour and the Unions that opposed joining. Corbyn is compared to Foot, but take a look at Foot's 1983 manifesto it said Labour would leave EU.  
    1
  4. ***** I'm talking about politicians dispossessing the public of public property that has never been sanctioned by the public. Corbyn always opposed this and recent polls have shown 70% the public think we should renationalise transport, power, water and not sell off the NHS. I never said your grandfather wasn't a monarchist, but I suspect if he had been born in a republic he would not have been looking for a monarch to bow to....What's your point?   
    1
  5. ***** Where have I stated that either my grandfathers or me were/are not monarchists? You either respond to my words or you argue with yourself.
    1
  6. autofreak7 Did the 'Corbyn factor' help the Tories in the Oldham West and Royton by-election? It seems the frenzy of the right-wing media has only served to strengthen Corbyn.
    1
  7. ***** The 70% is from recent survey. You say you are one of them - that you would like to see public ownership and control of transport and NHS. The British people did own and control oil, gas, electricity, trains, rail, buses, ports, post office, telecom, council housing. It's all been taken from the people and handed to the super rich - bit-by-bit so the people wont notice (remember Thatcher; 'We would never sell the Post Office). Well they have and they will sell the NHS too! Because they want a super rich minority to own and control everything. But you think it's OK and even though you don't agree with this inconvenience you will let them continue because you 'despise' Corbyn based on what you have learned about him from media sources that are owned by super rich who all support the things you say you oppose. And then you tell me I'm talking 'rubbish'....
    1
  8. ***** A political party must develop policy to avoid becoming stuck in the past.
    1
  9. The reverse of what this woman is saying is true, as many people are wishing they had had the courage to vote Leave, because the can now see that Project Fear was no more than scaremongering and that that scaremongering is the direct cause of a temporary loss of confidence in the UK.
    1
  10. Mums and nans will do anything for their 'little darlings' even vote for them not to be saddled with debt.
    1
  11. I think the 'fear and intimidation' thing must be very genuine - else why would Jess Phillips be having a safe room installed in her constituency office? Only a lying Trotskyite would be so cynical as to ask: Why would she alert would-be assailants to her having a safe room by informing the press that she now has a safe room?
    1
  12. macabre2007 It's called 'satire' - a lot of people use it in the comments section as you cant throw custard pies. The point I was attempting to make is that if a person was genuinely fearful of attack, they would not advertise the fact they had a safe room, as a safe room is always a pre-emptive means of escape. The fact that Jess Phillips has informed the press reveals that she is not really fearful of attack. But is attempting to associate those that disagree with her politics with extreme violent acts. 
    1
  13. macabre2007 Wow! You actually don't understand humour.
    1
  14. Talking of 'weakness' and 'cowardice' - why is Mrs May refusing to debate Mr Corbyn?
    1
  15. It doesn't look good when the Tories demanded a TV leaders debate when they were in opposition and then refuse to participate when in power... Not a very 'British' way of behaving.
    1
  16. But when David Cameron was leader of the opposition, he argued it was vital for democracy that, he was able to publicly challenge Gordon Brown in a TV debate. Then when Cameron was prime minister he refused to participate in a TV debate with the leader of the Labour Party. Theresa May is playing the same cowardly trick, as she is obviously afraid to go head to head with Jeremy Corbyn and wants to deny the electorate democracy. You claim Tory policies are good, but you don't explain why the leader of the Tory Party is afraid to publicly defend Tory policies with someone who offers the electorate alternative policies.
    1
  17. Perhaps not, but we're being told now that 'Corbyn wants to take us back to the 1970s'... I remember the 1970s and working class people were much better off... Rent for a council house was a day's wage and that included water charges and council tax. Unemployment was much lower and the term 'long term unemployed' had not been invented. A job meant 40+ hours a week and the term 'job for life' was commonplace. A single unskilled wage could keep a family and buy a house. Wives worked for 'pin money' University education was free. A British citizen owned half the economy. Public transport was more affordable. Coal, gas, electricity and petrol was more affordable. Those are the real reasons the wealthy don't want to go back to the 1970s!
    1
  18.  @Brindale  Remoaners are such a drag - wish they would all take a bus ride off a cliff - like they promised to.
    1
  19. When Jane Hill was speaking live about the BBC protest, she said the protesters believed the BBC was "too biased". Her expression immediately conceded that this had been a Freudian slip of gigantic proportion, as she had revealed live that she was aware of the BBC's partial stance on the question of Scottish independence....Because of course it is no more possible to be too biased than to be too guilty.    
    1
  20. Paxman asked Miliband about 'toughness' but did not ask Cameron why he refused to debate Miliband one to one.
    1
  21. Tiger Custardman So - who do you think NHS services should be available free of charge to?
    1
  22. Tiger Custardman That's not an answer to the question.
    1
  23. She seems quite good at campaigning for herself... I say this, because there was no sign of her during the EU referendum. Could she have been hiding away so she could emerge on the wining side and be the next prime minister?
    1
  24. I like the way the UK media holds the Tories to account on welfare cuts - after the general election.
    1
  25. The Tories are currently predicted to win 20 parliamentary seats from the Lib Dems in 2015 - and this twit thinks the Lib Dems are 'a party of government'.......   
    1
  26. +suziecreamchease You think laying a wreath on behalf of the Labour Party is the same as fucking a pig?
    1
  27. Jeremy Corbyn got 1.5 million more votes in 2017 than David Cameron did in 2015.
    1
  28. Actually, that's not true. Most people in prison pled guilty to the charge and of those that pled not-guilty, most do not contest their conviction as being wrongful.
    1
  29. 37% of the national vote = 51% of MPs = illegitimate government.
    1
  30. Reuel T It would not be a Conservative majority government. And under PR many would vote differently so it's not possible to transpose votes between systems. Under FPTP we have a situation where the representatives of 63% of the electorate can not defeat the representatives of 37% of the electorate....Some 'democracy'. 
    1
  31. ***** That's immaterial. Why do you think it could matter?
    1
  32. ***** I voted - but not for the party I wanted to see in government. That's the thing with our so-called 'democracy', it's not possible to know what the electorate wants because the system forces people to vote for what they don't want and not to vote at all - this is the problem.
    1
  33. ***** What exactly is 'least damage supposed to mean? As far as the voting system goes, I think it is highly probable that we will change to PR because people are seeing that the current system is not democratic. The Telegraph has recently described the following 4 things as being “advantages” of the first past the post system (FPTP). I have provided some reasons why these so-called advantages are detrimental to the United Kingdom having a true democracy. 1) “It is easy to understand”... FPTP can appear simple, but only because its is not easily understood. For instance many people do not realise that if a person did not vote for the successful candidate their vote is automatically disregarded. Or that many of those who understand FPTP are put off voting because they believe their preferred candidate will not win and their vote will be disregarded. How many people are really aware that in each constituency every losing vote will count for nothing, along with every vote bar one in the winning candidate's majority. 2) “It can be quick to count the votes and declare a winner”... This is at best a moot point, as everyone knows that all voting systems require every vote to be counted. In any case it's hardly an issue if a better way to elect a five-year government takes a little longer to announce the results. 3) “Voters can express a clear view on which party they want in government”... This is true of every voting system with the exception of FPTP, this is because FPTP forces many to vote against a party they dislike and not for the party they would like to be in government. This is known as 'tactical voting' and is employed to reduce the possibility of a vote being disregarded and thus wasted. 4) “In a two-party system, it has normally produced a single-party government with a clear mandate to govern”... Firstly, we do not have a two-party system. Secondly, if the election method is not representative, then a 'clear mandate' actually constitutes unwarranted power. Under FPTP the 1997 General Election elected 418 Labour members of parliament (out of 650) for a 43% share of the national vote. In the 1980s FPTP delivered similarly unrepresentative majorities for the Conservative Party. 5) “It is a fair and democratic system”... No, the Telegraph didn't state this as being an advantage of FPTP - I added it for a joke!  
    1
  34. ***** The Telegraph has recently described the following 4 things as being “advantages” of the first past the post system (FPTP). I have provided some reasons why these so-called advantages are detrimental to the United Kingdom having a true democracy. 1) “It is easy to understand”... FPTP can appear simple, but only because its is not easily understood. For instance many people do not realise that if a person did not vote for the successful candidate their vote is automatically disregarded. Or that many of those who understand FPTP are put off voting because they believe their preferred candidate will not win and their vote will be disregarded. How many people are really aware that in each constituency every losing vote will count for nothing, along with every vote bar one in the winning candidate's majority. 2) “It can be quick to count the votes and declare a winner”... This is at best a moot point, as everyone knows that all voting systems require every vote to be counted. In any case it's hardly an issue if a better way to elect a five-year government takes a little longer to announce the results. 3) “Voters can express a clear view on which party they want in government”... This is true of every voting system with the exception of FPTP, this is because FPTP forces many to vote against a party they dislike and not for the party they would like to be in government. This is known as 'tactical voting' and is employed to reduce the possibility of a vote being disregarded and thus wasted. 4) “In a two-party system, it has normally produced a single-party government with a clear mandate to govern”... Firstly, we do not have a two-party system. Secondly, if the election method is not representative, then a 'clear mandate' actually constitutes unwarranted power. Under FPTP the 1997 General Election elected 418 Labour members of parliament (out of 650) for a 43% share of the national vote. In the 1980s FPTP delivered similarly unrepresentative majorities for the Conservative Party. 5) “It is a fair and democratic system”... No, the Telegraph didn't state this as being an advantage of FPTP - I added it for a joke!
    1
  35. ***** Because as you point out it seemed to work when there was a two party system. We now have several parties, but what's crucial to democracy is that everyone’s vote counts. If the politicians are forced to get along - then so be it.
    1
  36. iSk00L Into a bit of existentialism are we?  
    1
  37. Anthony Meursault If you look at the facts you will see that the right in the Labour movement has suppressed the left. First the gang of four and the SDP split the working class vote and then when that would no longer work the right took over the Labour Party. We've had years of LibDems pretending to be left of Fidel Castro to split the vote and then put in the Tories and back privatisations. Of course now they're all 'left-wing' again. The point is Labour would have won in 83 if it wasn't for SDP and SDP/Liberal claimed to oppose Tory privatisations and 16 million voted against privatisations - 13 million voted Tory. It's all a con-trick facilitated by a first-past-the-post non-democracy. 
    1
  38. You do realise that the Tories haven't won a general election since 1992. If they couldn't win last time what makes you think they're going to win in 2015?
    1
  39. WorkingClassTories This is the way I see those factors: 1, Labour's lead is small but FPTP is just like horse racing - only have to win by a nose to get the cup. Economy - the economy was growing in 2010 it didn't help the government then - I doubt it will this time. Yes more people will say they trust the Tories on the economy but many will still vote Labour. As for increasing employment....Where? 2, Yes many voters are becoming concerned over immigration, but these people are mostly Tory voters switching to UKIP.  Some will go back but many will not and this will cost the Tories seats in marginals. 3, True Ed is not Blair. But the Labour vote is holding up and though many Labour voters would have preferred a different leader they will still vote Labour. Also he has the advantage being a PM in waiting ahead in the polls - Cameron is looking like a loser having to hang on not able to chance a snap election. 4, The Lib Dem collapse is the left of the party that now has one choice to keep the Tories out. True (if opinion polls can be applied evenly the Tories stand to win 20 -30 seats from Lib Dems but there may be tactical voting in these constituencies because these are the Tory hating defectors. It's more probable the Lib Dem defect will be greater where Labour stand to win. 5, IN/OUT EU Labour has enough support to win so isn't bothered at the mo. 6, Scotland - We'll have to wait and see. 7, True Labour will not win in certain areas - it doesn't matter. In FPTP it's 'miss an inch just as well miss a mile'. 8, I don't think enough ex Tory voters will go back - most people don't understand our electoral system and vote for who they want to run the country. Also Tory party membership has halved in the last 7 years. Anyway didn't the Tories say we should vote for the party we want to win - in the AV referendum? Whatever we think the independent experts (Electoral Calculus) are now predicting a Labour majority of 48.         
    1
  40. Did she say she didn't support Corbyn because she was a 'bagoftits'
    1
  41. But, Scotland will not be independent if it is a minor member of the EU... She's whining that Brexit will make Scotland more independent, because she wants Scotland to be less independent in the name of Scottish independence.
    1
  42. Scottish pound note is just a Bank of England pound note with a kilt on.
    1
  43. Well it is, but don't let that stop you.
    1
  44. +HoldOnToYourTails It worked for the ban tax credit campaign.
    1
  45. Rab C failed last time and Mary Doll will fail next time.
    1
  46. idiot!
    1
  47. Yes he did! Which is why you went for vague instead of specific.
    1
  48. Also, there is the matter of modern weaponry that was not available when nukes were first developed. Today, bombs use sat nav and ring the doorbell which means all the despot's palaces can be razed, making despot look like a muppet.
    1
  49. Lloyd Harrington Doesn’t look like Cameron can win though - even with your vote.
    1
  50. Lloyd Harrington When you say the 'Conservatives will win' what do you mean exactly?
    1