Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
And she'll be banging her head of the desk over it for the next five years.

Can we even afford desks in this country anymore?

Funnily enough, I just bought a nice new desk. An IKEA one. The MICKE in oak veneer.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
My prediction is that May will "win" with a reduced majority, maybe even another Hung Parliament.

If it's a hung parliament, then that would be a damning indictment of how incompetent the Tories are.

They called this election, they planned for it, but their manifesto and their campaign has been a shambles.

If that's not a dictionary definition of incompetence, I don't know what is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Funnily enough, I just bought a nice new desk. An IKEA one. The MICKE in oak veneer.

Can't go wrong with oak. But pine? Don't get me started on cheap pine furniture

Oh, my bed is pine. It's the Fjellse.

And I lost confidence in this batch of Tories after Hammond's first big u-turn.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A decent left wing leader would be nice, but I can't call an IRA supporting scumbag like Corbyn 'nice'. Especially because the beardy prick seems to jump into bed with every anti-western anti-British faction there is regardless of how loathsome they are. Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.

He called Bin Ladens killing rather than being captured and tried in the US a tragedy. The way you've left out part of the context makes it seem like Corbyn sympathized with Bin Laden, rather than with the rule of law.

I have this silly idea.


What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?


I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.

Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.

My desk is from Argos. But it's nice and pine!

 welshhoppo wrote:
I have this silly idea.


What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?


I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.

Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.

My desk is from Argos. But it's nice and pine!

It's a fair point. Atlee was never that good with the media, but he gave us the NHS.

With May, though, not only is she bad at the media side, we know from her time at the Home Office that's she's also bad at the day job side as well.

Not a good combination.

Do we? I mean, being a good politician, being what people want, and doing the things people want are all very separate things, I think. (in that last one, many separate things)

I think she has more substance/conviction to her than Cameron; I never got the opinion with Cameron he was there for anything more than the prestige ( a bit like Blair). I think May has her own vision for Britain at least. You might not agree with it or like it, but that doesn't mean she's bad at the job, just that you don't like what she stands for.

I think she has more substance/conviction to her than Cameron;

We're not exactly setting the bar high here, Ketara

On a very serious note, the first duty of any government is defence of the realm.

The Tories have utterly failed in this.

We know that they did not act upon intelligence about the Manchester bomber.

Former army officers say that the UK could not defend itself from a conventional invasion from Russia, so run down is our military.

Thousands of police officers have been axed by May, jeopardising law and order and public safety.

You can talk about budget deficits and past Labour economic incompetence until the cows come home.

But the Tories have been in charge for 7 years and they are not defending this nation from internal and external threats.

That is gross dereliction of duty. That is betrayal of this nation.

I get the impression that Corbyn absolutely lives for this stuff. Out campaigning, talking, meeting people. The Labour party have stopped bickering and let him off the leash because they have no choice, and no time to get anything else done. And doesn't he look relaxed now that he's not fighting against his own party squabbling?

May blatantly hates it. The question is - if she brings back a reduced majority, or even a not-substantially-increased-majority, will the ever present backstabbers in the Tory party go for her? I mean, if she loses that's a given. But we could well, in 2 weeks, be looking at another Tory leadership campaign. And hence nobody negotiating Brexit. Again! Hooray!

 Graphite wrote:
I get the impression that Corbyn absolutely lives for this stuff. Out campaigning, talking, meeting people. The Labour party have stopped bickering and let him off the leash because they have no choice, and no time to get anything else done. And doesn't he look relaxed now that he's not fighting against his own party squabbling?

Not really. Paxman and Neil made him squirm. He's great at preaching to the converted and loves to go off on a John Lennon 'Imagine' style idealistic sermon. When he's waving his hand around an audience hall, he exudes a relaxed atmosphere reasonably well. But when someone with some figures at their fingertips applies some pressure with a few pointed questions, he does this disgruntled frown, starts flailing, stumbling, and trying to address the audience instead.

The conclusion I've come to is that he's reasonably good at the vague general interpersonal aspect, but can't deal with a one on one grilling when someone puts his toes in the fire. You saw it the other night; he'd clearly prepped extensively for defending himself about the IRA and Paxman went , 'So.....you and the Falklands!' and he panicked.

May's the opposite side. Her posture sucks, she's never going to be likable, and she barely tries. But she does her homework at least, she tends to have figures at her fingertips, and she doesn't seem to crack under pressure in the way he does.

If you could combine them both, Power Rangers style, you'd probably have quite a good politician!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.

There is if you take the quote in context. He said it was a tragedy that Bin Laden wasn't arrested and put on trial (which he thinks should have been easily achievable), not that Bin Ladens death itself was a tragedy. I can't say I disagree with him.

Oh, granted, they're both inept in their own special and unique ways which are glaringly obvious now, plus a whole raft of extra incompetencies which will only become evident in the future, but it really does seem that in an election campaign, which is what's currently ongoing, Corbyn does rather well. Which rather torpedoes the whole "Jezza's unelectable" narrative.

And one of the main jobs of a politician is to get elected, no matter how well you perform once you've actually got the job. And May seems to be BAD at that. It'd be interesting to see how many people in her constituency voted for her in the past, and how many would have voted for anyone with a blue ribbon.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I have this silly idea.


What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?


I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.

Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.

My desk is from Argos. But it's nice and pine!

Argos buddies! I got my tv unit from Argos.

And this is an interesting theory. I don't think May is a good operator but this point about charismatic but for slimy operators like Blair and Cameron is true.

I hope this makes sense. I'm on my phone and it's hard to type.

 Graphite wrote:
Oh, granted, they're both inept in their own special and unique ways which are glaringly obvious now, plus a whole raft of extra incompetencies which will only become evident in the future, but it really does seem that in an election campaign, which is what's currently ongoing, Corbyn does rather well. Which rather torpedoes the whole "Jezza's unelectable" narrative.

And one of the main jobs of a politician is to get elected, no matter how well you perform once you've actually got the job. And May seems to be BAD at that. It'd be interesting to see how many people in her constituency voted for her in the past, and how many would have voted for anyone with a blue ribbon.

May got 66% of all the votes cast in her constituency in 2015. She got more than five times as many votes as the second placed candidate (Labour.)

Some of that is due to it being a Tory-leaning area, but not all. May has been MP for Maidenhead since 1997. The Party like her being in that seat or they would select someone else to stand for it.

 Graphite wrote:
Oh, granted, they're both inept in their own special and unique ways which are glaringly obvious now, plus a whole raft of extra incompetencies which will only become evident in the future, but it really does seem that in an election campaign, which is what's currently ongoing, Corbyn does rather well. Which rather torpedoes the whole "Jezza's unelectable" narrative.
.

Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I've can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.

I think all this talk about 'points narrowing' in the polls is frankly just a case of the 24 hour news network desperate to spice it up a bit. Making it sound like there's an actual contest is far more interesting than just repeating 'Yeah, she's probably going to win another thirty seats' ad infinitum. I'm open to being surprised on that score, but I don't think the 'Promise all things to all people' manifesto has actually made much of an impact, and Corbyn himself is too poor a politician to carry a campaign through to a remotely successful conclusion. The Tories thought they had it in the bag at first, and put in absolutely no effort, but we've seen over the last few weeks that they've begun to take it seriously and gain steam. Certainly, they've adapted their approach as they've gone as a response to the blunders made, whereas Jezze and co. seem incapable of learning and keep making the same gaffes they've been doing since the start.

tl;dr I reckon those who would have voted Corbyn still will do, but nobody else will. We shall see though!

Or people who see a man who seems to (a) care, (b) engage in people, (c) knows what he's talking about and (d) lands on the right side of history, up against a woman who is none of the above.

Your options are pretty awful whatever way you look at it, so I can't blame anyone for taking what they feel is the least gakky option.

I suspect we're going to have record low turnout on this one, or record high spoiled ballots.

Herzlos wrote:
Or people who see a man who seems to (a) care, (b) engage in people, (c) knows what he's talking about and (d) lands on the right side of history, up against a woman who is none of the above.
.

I think anyone who looks at Corbyn and starts thinking 'That is a man who is on the right side of history!' falls into category (a) of my previous definition. In my opinion, anyway.

 Ketara wrote:

Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I've can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.

Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....

It was obvious by the time of Mays interview which side of the bed Paxman preferred. Despite not really feeling confident about either side, Corbyn easily out did May in the discussions. Paxman basically jumped on Corbyn every few seconds and never really let him get on with putting out his message. I think if I was in the audience I would have told Paxman to shut the hell up as he's not running to be PM. However when he came to May he just sat there especially at the end and just let her spout out 5 minutes of a party political broadcast and to force down the we'll take no deal if there isn't a good deal (whereas a good interviewer might have asked just what a good deal is?) and almost certainly wouldn't have let Corbyn do the same thing. Yet despite this the general consensus is that Corbyn came out relatively unscathed because Paxman just asked the same questions over and over which had been prepared for and May looked completely out of her depth despite the more easier ride by Paxman. Her responses to the NHS, Education and Social Care were well damning really if you care about social inequality in the country. Still strong and stable, get rid of those dirty immigrants and best possible deal got the seals clapping in the audience.

I said it before Andrew Neil would have been much better than Shouty McShout Paxman.

And the press appears to be getting even more biased. When even David Dimbleby is noting the very skewed views of the press you've got to wonder just how bad things are...(and really how influenced the populace can be by the media).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/david-dimbleby-jeremy-corbyn_uk_592d3cabe4b0065b20b807ae?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

Corbyn, on the right of history? Are you serious?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A decent left wing leader would be nice, but I can't call an IRA supporting scumbag like Corbyn 'nice'. Especially because the beardy prick seems to jump into bed with every anti-western anti-British faction there is regardless of how loathsome they are. Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.

He called Bin Ladens killing rather than being captured and tried in the US a tragedy. The way you've left out part of the context makes it seem like Corbyn sympathized with Bin Laden, rather than with the rule of law.

Agreed (and obviously something people choose to ignore), however it's obviously OK for western powers to assassinate anyone they please and you wonder why some people get annoyed and do stupid things.

It is also questionable that supported the IRA but more tried to get a form of dialogue going. From that perspective he was just an early adopter that discussions can bring more permanent change. Both the Tories and New Labour 'sympathised' with the IRA later as they came to reason that causing bloody Sunday massacres was probably not the way to true peace and that it required to actual discuss the issues with the terrorists to stop the endless chain of violence and death.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I have this silly idea.


What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?


I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.

Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.

My desk is from Argos. But it's nice and pine!

Argos buddies! I got my tv unit from Argos.




And this is an interesting theory. I don't think May is a good operator but this point about charismatic but for slimy operators like Blair and Cameron is true.

I hope this makes sense. I'm on my phone and it's hard to type.

True she ain't so shiny she can slide across a floor and not move her feet, convince a Saudi to buy sand and sell bridges to people in a desert.

But she is not that kind of person, she ain't entirely smooth and does have weakness in interviews.
Maybe at least that might be a good thing vs the likes of Blair who sold us so much gak and lies it was insane.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Chill? You're telling me to chill? I'm not the person in this thread ranting that anyone who dares to vote for a party that I dislike are murderers.

I'm calling for all sides to chill. My apologies if that was unclear. I have friends and family over there and some of the rhetoric I'm seeing is getting out of hand.

Graphite wrote:

...... for Gork's sake.

Gork? GORK?!

MORK IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!!! TO ARMS! WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH!

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.

Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....

Nope. Note this part:

Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

I'm referring purely to the people I've met, spoken to, and know on the subject, and passing an opinion as to why they are voting for Corbyn. Totally legitimate. I'm not declaring it as fact, or even applying it to everyone out there. Any dedicated Corbynista believer is free to try and convince me at any time that they don't fit into those three categories.

Not to mention the fact that being a hardcore leftist or having a real hatred for the Tories is hardly an insult, they're entirely valid positions to hold. Even being ignorant on a subject isn't really an insult. If you asked me how to lay out some internal plumbing, I'd probably be equally clueless and vulnerable to clever spin on how it should be best undertaken. That link earlier on Labour's economic record is a perfect example of an article which 98% of the population probably doesn't have the tools or knowledge to pick apart. It's no more of an insult to note that fact, than it is to note my knowledge deficiency on plumbing.

 jhe90 wrote:


True she ain't so shiny she can slide across a floor and not move her feet, convince a Saudi to buy sand and sell bridges to people in a desert.

But she is not that kind of person, she ain't entirely smooth and does have weakness in interviews.
Maybe at least that might be a good thing vs the likes of Blair who sold us so much gak and lies it was insane.

Wait a minute are we saying that the Tories have spent the last 7 years lying to the populace which is fine and yet the if Labour do it then that's a different issue? That sounds like double standards to me?

And on an aside given that we are about to go into the most complex negotiations in our history it might be good to have someone that can be smooth and charm a decent agreement rather than a "bull at a gate" approach that is likely only going to leave the EU laughing at the UK's foolishness?

If May can't comfortably negotiate with the public and gets flummoxed by the simplest of questions and responds with the same old tired mantra of "best deal possible for the Tory party" (or worse has a senile grandmother's strop) then what hope do we really have of getting any sort of agreement with the EU. We might as well go in and say "WTO folks is that OK?" and be done with it and let the economy and your children's future collapse compared to what it could have been (and even with a deal its going to be far worse). But hey that's OK because at least we'll be able to keep out the dirty immigrants stealing our jobs and keeping wages down (which has no evidence base) right?

May pretty much admitted last night the police, NHS etc are all going to get cut and she doesn't really care about the damage it will cause (especially to the poorest). But if you are in the top 2% of earners don't worry about it you'll be fine. But suggest, shock horror that we might need to pay a bit more tax to keep these fine institutions working for everyone then there is uproar. Personally I think May's view on being English appears to be based around the mantra of "Me, myself and I".

When in two years time people are complaining about public services and economy are going to the dogs because we didn't want foreign doctors, nurses, catering staff, vegetable and fruit pickers etc I'll be quite happy to tell those that voted Tory "Told you so"!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.

Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....

Nope. Note this part:

Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

I'm referring purely to the people I've met, spoken to, and know on the subject, and passing an opinion as to why they are voting for Corbyn. Totally legitimate. I'm not declaring it as fact, or even applying it to everyone out there. Any dedicated Corbynista believer is free to try and convince me at any time that they don't fit into those three categories.

No you did because you said from your experience and to quote "the only people" and you did a nice Tory trick of ignoring the fact you called people "gullible". And even if you can persuade me that weren't implying this then you still insulted the people that you called gullible because rather than try and argue why they were wrong you just insulted them. Sorry you are a mod and you should be better than this.

Even Radio 4 has been talking about the easy ride the Tories have had at the hands of the media so far. This is due to their very low degree of engagement in the process.

To go back to the issue of wealth, it is unrealistic to call a salary of £30,000 "wealth". Many people living in southern Britain would be struggling to get by on such a salary, whatever its relation to average pay, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Even Radio 4 has been talking about the easy ride the Tories have had at the hands of the media so far. This is due to their very low degree of engagement in the process.

To go back to the issue of wealth, it is unrealistic to call a salary of £30,000 "wealth". Many people living in southern Britain would be struggling to get by on such a salary, whatever its relation to average pay, etc.

It depends on what you mean by wealth. As stated previously at £30k you still get a choice in what you do. I can easily find studio flats for £450pcm in the south east which a 30K salary easily covers. Go to £700pcm and you can get a terraced house. The wealth is because you have a choice. You can even decided to commute because you have about £2k pcm to play with. OK so you are not going to be living the high life but you still have plenty of choices relatively. Now consider that 70% of the population are earning less than this and 1% less than about 11k. Relatively for these people £30k is wealth they could only imagine. £450pcm is half their salary in any month before bills, they have no choices everything goes on essentials only. There's no money for fun, for educating yourself further to improve yourself and so on. I'm not saying 30k makes life easy but by the vast majority of the rest of the population you are wealthy.

 Whirlwind wrote:

No you did because you said from your experience and to quote "the only people"

Yes. The only people in my limited empirical experience and opinion. Pulling a few words out of a sentence/context and claiming an insult doesn't make it one.

And even if you can persuade me that weren't implying this then you still insulted the people that you called gullible because rather than try and argue why they were wrong you just insulted them.

Some people are gullible. If you're complaining that I mentioned the fact that there are gullible people out there and they have votes/opinions, I'm not entirely certain what to tell you. Are you claiming gullible people do not exist? Or if they do, that they don't ever support people in Labour? I'm sure there's plenty of gullible people voting Tory and several other factions as well. Gullibility is not the exclusive preserve of any one one political faction, any more than ignorance is. Mentioning that people possess a trait and also vote is not, I think, particularly damning.

Sorry you are a mod and you should be better than this.

Than having an opinion on the motivations for people to support a politician? Dear Lord.

You may also wish to note that I initially used the word 'support', or in other words, actively campaign for/believe in Corbyn as opposed to 'vote for'. There are plenty of people who vote for Labour who don't fit into those categories, but they don't tend to be 'believers', so to speak. I'm talking about the people for whom Corbyn can do no wrong, those who see him on the telly and believe he's the salvation of the country, the ones who pen the innumerable articles about the evil media and the saintliness of the man.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

No you did because you said from your experience and to quote "the only people"

Yes. The only people in my limited empirical experience and opinion. Pulling a few words out of a sentence/context and claiming an insult doesn't make it one.

No need to take anything out of context, your exact wording was

Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

a) those gullible...

So lets break the sentence shall we. First we have

"Personally..." Fine it's you opinion

"...as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience)..." You've done an analysis of the your own data you have collected and therefore invoking a hypothesis (hence the wording empirical)

"the only people who actually -support- him are:" Fairly self explanatory but that your hypothesis (in reference empirical experience) is that the people that support him are

"a) those gullible..." (again self explanatory but insulting)

Hence to put it all together from the evidence gathering you have concluded that a significant proportion of those people that actually support Corbyn are actually gullible for doing so (or are gullible in the information they accept). That's an implication and insulting.

If you had stated "I've met a few supporters of Corbyn and some of the appeared to be a bit naïve and gullible in accepting what he was saying" then that would have been fine because it refers to actual experience. Instead you invoked a hypothesis by making an empirical assessment of Corbyn supporter (and I'd like you to provide your data set with errors and what made them 'gullible' to make such a sweeping hypothesis)

Than having an opinion on the motivations for people to support a politician? Dear Lord.

No that a mod should go around insulting a group of people you don't know because of very shaky personal experience.

I appreciate you are desperately trying to do a U-turn on the May scale but can't you just accept that you potentially insulted Corbyn supporters because of your personal opinions and anecdotal discussions?

 Whirlwind wrote:
[
"...as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience)..." You've done an analysis of the your own data you have collected and therefore invoking a hypothesis (hence the wording empirical)

Empirical means it's information that's been gathered through sensory data input, actually. Aka, my own experiences. It's distinct from 'rationalist' data, which is worked out in an abstract intellectual fashion (which is what you appear to be searching for). Derives from the word 'empiricism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Basic academic philosophical usage in line with the etymological origins of the word and epistemology. You may have some alternative definition of the word, but that's mine. That help?

In other words, I'm not claiming to have done any form of extended analysis, I'm talking about what I have personally experienced. The 'hypothesis' so to speak, is derived from my collective assessment from those I have encountered who are dedicated Corbynistas, as opposed to just a casual Labour voter or person with other political inclinations/beliefs.

"a) those gullible..." (again self explanatory but insulting)

Hence to put it all together from the evidence gathering you have concluded that a significant proportion of those people that actually support Corbyn are actually gullible for doing so (or are gullible in the information they accept). That's an implication and insulting.

You missed the following word 'or'. You know, the one that implies an alternative. You also missed out on the fact that I offered two other options. I wasn't declaring that Corbyn supporters were all three in my experience, but one of three. Although in retrospect, I should have probably separated a) into two categories, and considering it, I suppose a Corbyn supporter could fall into multiple categories presented therein.

If you had stated "I've met a few supporters of Corbyn and some of the appeared to be a bit naïve and gullible in accepting what he was saying" then that would have been fine because it refers to actual experience. Instead you invoked a hypothesis by making an empirical assessment of Corbyn supporter (and I'd like you to provide your data set with errors and what made them 'gullible' to make such a sweeping hypothesis)

My dataset is made out of personal empirical experience. It's not exactly transferrable, leastways, not unless you've developed a memory transfer machine whilst I wasn't looking.

No that a mod should go around insulting a group of people you don't know because of very shaky personal experience.

People I don't know? Errr.....I hate to break it you, but considering I'm going off of personal empirical experience here, I do actually know a good number, if not most of them. That's......kind of the point. That's why I specified the word 'empirical' and because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I have the only truth of things, qualified it as my opinion.

I appreciate you are desperately trying to do a U-turn on the May scale but can't you just accept that you potentially insulted Corbyn supporters because of your personal opinions and anecdotal discussions?

I find it mildly interesting you've jumped so far on an insult that doesn't exist, but completely passed over Yodhrins's earlier comment.

I also find it entertaining the way you've linked items you perceive as negative to Tories twice in as many posts. You realise that would probably be just as insulting to a relevant group of people (ala Conservative voters) as the thing you're attempting (and failing) to accuse me of, right?

EDIT:- Upon reflection, this is going far off track, so I'm going to leave this particular line of back and forth there. Rest assured, no insult was intended to anyone specific, but I do reserve the right to have an opinion on the types of people currently waving metaphorical flags with Corbyn on the front.