Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Sprotyrover on July 03, 2016, 12:39:13 pm
-
Apparently Tom Watson was unable to have a one to one with Corbyn this week as his support team said he is a 70 year old man and they were frightened he would be bullied!!!!
-
I heard that pn the radio they were worried he would be bullied into stepping down.........wtf
-
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
-
get Diane Abbott on the platform with him I'm sure he will "ri$e to the occasion"
it might "allegedly" all come back to him "at a stroke"
-
I'll tell you something - there's no wonder the newspapers and media get away with what they do with some of the garbage picked up on here.
-
Have to agree, what tittle tattle that passes for importance for some.
Just read this article on the matter (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/corbyn-keeps-watson-arms-length). The guy who they proposed to take over from Corbyn as part of this 'extraction deal' is supposedly Clive Lewis. Just spent a few minutes reading Lewis' twitter feed and, lo and behold, the guy is actually supporting Corbyn!
If this is a meta-ploy by labour MPs to regain the trust of the British people then I would suggest it is them who are shooting themselves in the foot.
-
It now seems very unlikely that the new Tory leader / PM will attempt to call an early General Election.
Therefore I think some of the heat might be taken out of this argument - at least until the next round of local elections.
-
TRB
I can't see it. You can't get to this state then everyone shrug their shoulders and go home.
This has to be resolved one way or the other within the next few weeks.
-
TRB
I can't see it. You can't get to this state then everyone shrug their shoulders and go home.
This has to be resolved one way or the other within the next few weeks.
I very much doubt it is over, but I think Corbyn is more likely to be able to hang on for a while now.
His opponents will of course be looking for an opportunity to remove him.
-
Labour + Corbyn = unelectable
-
TRB
I can't see it. You can't get to this state then everyone shrug their shoulders and go home.
This has to be resolved one way or the other within the next few weeks.
I very much doubt it is over, but I think Corbyn is more likely to be able to hang on for a while now.
His opponents will of course be looking for an opportunity to remove him.
They were looking for the opportunity to remove him 2 months before he was elected. Its great democracy, can't beat it. I think I might sod off to North Korea...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mps-are-plotting-a-coup-against-the-potential-leader-if-he-is-elected-10399272.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mps-are-plotting-a-coup-against-the-potential-leader-if-he-is-elected-10399272.html)
-
Labour get elected when Labour supporters and floating voters vote in their favour.
If they rely on members of the Labour Party to get them elected then they might as well disband now.
The leader needs to be attractive to enough of the electorate to inspire confidence that they could form a government and then actually rule.
Who is going to be in his shadow cabinet? The big names and experienced MPs don't want to know.
-
Who is going to be in his shadow cabinet? The big names and experienced MPs don't want to know.
Idler, as a posted above.
This 'Clive Lewis'. This Clive Lewis is the one the Corbyn out agitators wanted for the next Labour leader and next PM of this country. You'd presume they consider him a big hitter then, correct? Yet, this Clive Lewis publicly supports Jeremy Corbyn!
It's a simple choice. Politics by memo and the back door. Or politics by popular democracy and principle. Your choice. I think the tipping point for this choice for the mass of the British public is coming sooner than people think.
-
I think most labour mps are closet tories.
-
Copps, I don't think that Labour are electable whoever they choose at the minute. They need major surgery and then to start singing from the same hymn sheet. That doesn't seem like happening any time soon. All the while the government can do more or less as it likes.
There seems no energy or dynamism at all in the party.
-
Labour + Corbyn = unelectable
Why? Because the media says so?
-
Copps, I don't think that Labour are electable whoever they choose at the minute. They need major surgery and then to start singing from the same hymn sheet. That doesn't seem like happening any time soon. All the while the government can do more or less as it likes.
There seems no energy or dynamism at all in the party.
Why? Because the media says so?
-
Labour + Corbyn = unelectable
Why? Because the media says so?
No, because the majority of Labour MPs and at last count four former Labour leaders with no axes to grind say so.
-
Not really true that he needs the majority support of MPs given he only needs support from 20% of them to be elected leader.
I don't think it's quite sinking in to a few on here just how low the opinion of politicians is rated after the worst political campaign in this country's history.
For example, I can only really encourage Tony "I don't understand their popularity. There are wars" (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/23/tony-blair-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn) Blair to continue his campaign against Corbyn. I think it will put his ratings through the roof.
-
I don't think it's quite sinking in to a few on here just how low the opinion of politicians is rated after the worst political campaign in this country's history.
This from a Corbyn supporter. The irony...
-
Labour + Corbyn = unelectable
Why? Because the media says so?
No, because the majority of Labour MPs and at last count four former Labour leaders with no axes to grind say so.
No axe to grind? All seeking power, not the truth or what is best for the people of this country.
To get a Labour government for a Labour governments sake is of no benefit for the working people of this country. Policies that will benefit all people is what is necessary.
It is sad that people affiliate to political parties for the benefit of themselves and not the benefit of the country as a whole. Me, Me, Me; the legacy of the Blue Rince Bag. How sad.
-
Labour + Corbyn = unelectable
Why? Because the media says so?
No, because the majority of Labour MPs and at last count four former Labour leaders with no axes to grind say so.
There's one thing 3 of the 4 would know about and thats being unelectable. The other is a war criminal.
-
I don't think it's quite sinking in to a few on here just how low the opinion of politicians is rated after the worst political campaign in this country's history.
This from a Corbyn supporter. The irony...
Glynn's statement referred to quantity of MPs. As if the sheer weight of numbers had some bearing on the situation. I was referring to the fact that it probably doesn't given the general malaise in which they are viewed. I don't think that negates the possibility for putting support into any one politician based on principle.
There's an elephant in the room here and it won't go away. And it is that Jeremy Corbyn is currently the only figure on the left of politics who can even come close to wining a general election. The only one. Look at these pathetic attempts by the rest of the party to try and scramble a suitable candidate. Even they know.
-
Copps
Has it not sunk in yet? On Corbyn's watch, we've just lost the most important vote of my lifetime.
36 hours before the polls opened, he was talking to an American webcaster about the coherent Left argument for Leaving.
This is the leader of the Labour Party we are talking about. In historic times. At best, being guilty of self-indulgent waffle. At worst, showing his true colours on the issue that will define our country's outlook for the rest of my life.
I never saw leadership in him. I never have in the 30-odd years he's been an MP. I've seen precisely THIS sort of person.
I truly do not see what any of you see that he brings to the party as a leader. Wesley's contributions have made it clear for a long time. Your recent one has done the same. This isn't about a positive, coherent front. He is defined by what he is not. That is sufficient.
-
I define him as a man who wants to redress many of the damaging benefits changes enacted by the tories and who wants to increase public house building and controls on private rents. They are two of the most important issues to me personally.
The elephant is still there isn't it, because you can go down the list of what he stands for and it all has broad support on the left. There is currently no more decisive figure on the left to deliver it. Find me one.
-
Its comments just like that Billy that encapsulate just why there is such a movement towards Corbyn.
In the same way that you sit Sneering at those that rally around Corbyn, the PLP have done exactly the same thing, at times showing pure contempt for the people they are elected to represent.
Is Corbyn responsible for the EU referendum vote? Is he balls. The campaign was a disgrace on both sides built on lies, expansions of the truth and pure propaganda.
Your issue has become personal Billy, you know where this is heading and you are spitting your dummy out similar to those that are marching about Brexit. The PLP have rolled the dice and Corbyn has refused to be bullied out. He'll win any leadership contest he's in by a landslide. If they refuse to let him take part they'll destroy a generation of Labour supporters forever.
-
Wesley
Your post is very revealing. I have never said anything whatsoever about Corbyn or his supporters that sprang from me "sneering" at them.
The fact that you read that message into words that don't say that message screams volumes.
I've set out, time and again, detailed reasons why I think that Corbyn isn't a leader by nature or style, and why my opinion is that Labour cannot and will not be elected under him.
As you know damn well, when I feel as though I've overstepped the mark, I apologise personally. I haven't on this topic. I've stuck to facts and lessons from experience.
And yet, you convince yourself that I'm sneering at you. As I say, that conclusion speaks volumes.
You have never addressed a single one of those points. Instead, you abuse those who disagree with you. They are "Judas Iscariot". They are "red Tories." They are "war criminals".
Ad hominems all the way.
And you say that "I" make it personal. Do you EVER stop to reflect on your own approach?
-
Copps
Those two policies were ones that Miliband campaigned on. Is that as far as the New Politics goes? Is that it?
If that is it, here's a thought experiment. If a centrist Labour leader campaigned on a manifesto that included those two policies, someone who wouldn't scare the English shire horses; a David Miliband or a Dan Jarvis, say, for the sake of argument; would that be sufficient for you to give your wholehearted support to Labour?
-
Wesley
Your post is very revealing. I have never said anything whatsoever about Corbyn or his supporters that sprang from me "sneering" at them.
The fact that you read that into words that don't say that screams volumes.
I've set out, time and again, detailed reasons why I think that Corbyn isn't a leader by nature or style, and why my opinion is that Labour cannot and will not be elected under him.
You have never addressed a single one of those points. Instead, you abuse those who disagree with you. They are "Judas Iscariot". They are "red Tories."
Ad hominems all the way.
And you say that "I" make it personal. Do you EVER stop to reflect on your own approach?
So why have I taken to Corbyn?
Prior to his arrival last September I was pretty unenthusiastic about Politics. I'd voted Green all my electoral life based on very little to do with policy and because I thought both the party running the country and the opposition were exactly the same. The expenses scandal had outed them for exactly what they were.
Without going too Russel Brand I'd have seen the whole house cleared out at that point and replaced with Politicians that weren't after lining their own pockets.
Corbyn spoke volumes to me - when he first arose as a rank outsider for Labour leadership I first looked at his record and his behaviours as an MP and I took to everything I saw. His voting record is exemplary, often in times when his parties wasn't.
A leader should lead by example and he's done that, not just now but in the past. His expenses - see above.
It's been mentioned how important it is to be charismatic in modern politics. That's the biggest problem with it for me. PMQs are a disgrace - the fact it forms part of the make up of our government even more so. Whooping Chimps point scoring, often personal. I watched Corbyn getting jeered yet persevering with his 'People's questions' and I thought good on him. That's what an MP is paid to do. Not sit deflecting endless questions with crass insults.
However what has really led to my staunch defense of Corbyn has been the last few weeks. To watch this coup unfold has been nothing shy of a disgrace. The media involvement, the painting of Corbyn as senile, the endless statements from former Labour MPs condemning him have summed up just how dirty politics has become and how has JC responded - in the same dignified fashion he always has done.
Labour destroyed itself in Scotland and it will in the North by forgetting just what it stands for.
If you can hand on heart say you haven't looked at the behaviour of the party in the last month and thought it could and should have been dealt with differently by the sycophants I'd be very shocked and it has backfired spectacularly. People are looking in with pure disdain at these actions and believe it's enough to act. 60'000 joining in a week is the figure bandied about showing that it's a huge number feeling the same way.
The young are hugely dissassociated with the same old faces, the same old lies and the same old contempt. JC offers something wildly different from anything I've been offered before.
He won't win an election, I honestly believe that, nor will any other candidate in time for the next general election. This is more about reform of a party that has forgotten what it stood for.
-
I'm confused. Is that an apology for your ad hominems on anyone who disagrees with Corbyn or isn't it?
Still. At least we've got a clear steer on your history now. More echoes coming down the decades. It was recently arrived (and utterly-convinced-of-their-rightness. And unconcerned-about-actually-winning-elections) entryists back in the early 80s that f**ked the Labour Party and opened the way for Thatcher.
Thanks for clearing that up. And yes, I AM sneering now.
-
I understand all this, not wanting to bicker and argue, and be a serious politician. And he does seem to involve his constituents in many questions towards the prime minister. But he seems to not know what's important, the major issues he seems to duck.
I have the feeling, he was a very reluctant remainer, having previously been all in favour of leaving. He thought he would sit on the sidelines, not really get involved too much, and this would make his position stronger.
But it's seen as another nail in his leadership qualities, people demand an opinion, and it must be a strong one. I think the longer he has been in power, they have whittled away at his values, and he isn't comfortable with it.
He is an intelligent man, he knows how he has to go, i suspect he would have by now, others around him, are not prepared to lose they're positions.
Labour cannot be elected unfortunately, he is not the leader to take them into government. Even a top candidate would find it difficult to chip away at the conservative advantage.
An opportunity is there though, if it is sorted out quickly enough. The conservatives are not in a good position, i suspect they will have lost a lot of votes since being elected.
The press can 'make or break' any leader, unfortunately they don't have much good to say about him. The people need to see strength in each department, if labour are to have a chance. He needs to do the right thing and go!.
Corbyn isn't senile, but his rose bush is, it's all over the place!.
-
I'm not convinced he is intelligent Sammy - at least not in any practical doing something kind of way. He looks more like a lounge socialist to me: great on theory and theoretical knowledge but completely and utterly useless at anything practical. He calls himself a politician? Yet he persists in ensuring that he will deliver absolutely nothing of any value at all to anybody who supports - or even despises - him. The only thing Corbyn has and will deliver is 20 years of Tory rule. Brilliant result that for a bloke of his alleged political views. Me? I think he's intellectually moribund.
BobG
-
I don't think it's quite sinking in to a few on here just how low the opinion of politicians is rated after the worst political campaign in this country's history.
This from a Corbyn supporter. The irony...
Glynn's statement referred to quantity of MPs. As if the sheer weight of numbers had some bearing on the situation. I was referring to the fact that it probably doesn't given the general malaise in which they are viewed. I don't think that negates the possibility for putting support into any one politician based on principle.
There's an elephant in the room here and it won't go away. And it is that Jeremy Corbyn is currently the only figure on the left of politics who can even come close to wining a general election. The only one. Look at these pathetic attempts by the rest of the party to try and scramble a suitable candidate. Even they know.
Ah, so the sheer weight of numbers of people who voted for Corbyn doesn't mean anything? Glad to get that one sorted out, can we drop that one now?
-
Its comments just like that Billy that encapsulate just why there is such a movement towards Corbyn.
In the same way that you sit Sneering at those that rally around Corbyn, the PLP have done exactly the same thing, at times showing pure contempt for the people they are elected to represent.
Is Corbyn responsible for the EU referendum vote? Is he balls. The campaign was a disgrace on both sides built on lies, expansions of the truth and pure propaganda.
Your issue has become personal Billy, you know where this is heading and you are spitting your dummy out similar to those that are marching about Brexit. The PLP have rolled the dice and Corbyn has refused to be bullied out. He'll win any leadership contest he's in by a landslide. If they refuse to let him take part they'll destroy a generation of Labour supporters forever.
What utter self-deluding twaddle. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the millions who elected the MPs to represent them before Corbyn became leader are being treated with contempt by the people they voted for because their MPs want to get the power to give their constituents what they voted for? Jesus wept.
-
Telling thread; Gossip, vitriol, fantastical musings on his leadership abilities and minor points scoring about the political system. In many ways a microcosm of the wider opposition he faces.
-
The reality is that Corbyn will always have the party membership...The membership is staunch left wing socialist..They simply don't have a horse to back other than Corbyn...It's getting to the stage that the parliamentary labour party is a separate entity to the membership..
One of Doncasters mp's is Caroline Flint, a mp who voted for all the wars, bombing of Syria etc etc..She doesn't give a toss about Doncaster and she's no socialist but a blairite..She was parachuted in against the local parties wishes because it's a safe seat...Yet the people still voted for her in the thousands...The policy's don't matter,you could stick a red rosette on a donkey in Donny and it would be voted in....
Those seats don't matter in elections...It's areas like mine who decide elections (nth Lincs) In the last 4 parliament's its been held by Labour twice and Conservatives twice...it's floating and the feeling round here is...How can you vote for a man who cant even run his own party never mind a country?????? It really is that simple....
-
Copps
I think you missed "entryism" off your little list.
-
I feel ya. Terrible isn't it - people becoming political, bolstering labour's support, exercising their democratic rights, having the cheek to have not lived through the 80s.
They'll be voting labour in at the next general election if we give them enough rope.
-
Copps.
if you reckon it helps the democratic process to have people sign up to join a party, and immediately launch into calling members who have given their life to that party "Judas", and screaming for them to be deselected, then we really are into interesting times.
And it's not about living through the 80s. It's about understanding the lessons of history before you steam in and make it all about you and what you personally believe.
But, hey. I'm sure you're right and you know how to manage this.
-
Billy, How does history explain the rise and success of Trump, Farage and Podemos in 2016?
It tells me that people are rejecting austerity and main stream politics and politicians. They are looking to figures outside the mainstream who they think are more 'in touch' with them. People like Corbyn.
His message though the referendum campaign was 'dont blame the EU for your problems, blame austerity'. That wasn't the message to win that campaign - but it may very well have won an autumn general election.
We are in a very different place to the 1980's. There is no Soviet Bloc, CND, strong trade union movement or Clause 4. I believe Corbyn would have been more popular in the country than you think - and it is the PLP who have let the movement and the party down.
-
Wilts. Who are these "people" who are flocking to the Corbyn banner? You're doing the usual left thing of getting excited at the...shall we call it, momentum? of a few tens of thousands of politically interested people and extrapolating it to the "people".
And the other left thing. Writing the next generation's "If only everyone else hadn't stabbed us in the back" legend.
-
PS
What proportion of the vote did Podemos win the other week? What proportion of the vote did UKIP win in 2015?
If you want Labour to be a niche party on the Left, winning 15-20% of the vote and saying,"Look! We told you loads of people agreed with us!" then we have different aims for politics.
If we had PR, I'd agree with you. I'd join the left-wing Labour split. But we don't. And positioning Labour anywhere but as part of a broad centre-left coalition party in our system is a recipe for electoral irrelevance. However warm a feeling it might give you personally.
-
Interesting and timely article this Billy, light reading perhaps (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/political-establishment-momentum-jeremy-corbyn). Seems to mirror the debate going on here.
On Corbyn's support, you wouldn't want to get melodramatic now would you? With comments like 'niche party with 15% of the vote' you do run the risk of doing that. In the by-elections labour's share of the vote has increased markedly in all but one constituency (where it stayed the same) while the Tories share has decreased. I take it you already know this keeping up with politics as you do but then rather odd to suggest Labours vote share will decrease dramatically.
Regarding the elephant in the room, Corbyn has strong support among labour members and supporters that is clear, but its also becoming clear he is currently both one of the most visible and trusted politicians in the country (relatively speaking). I noted you suggested Miliband mark II as a viable leader earlier. I think after I read that I realised that even you probably know at this stage he is the only candidate, as do certain Labour MPs, who know at this stage their only redress is to pressure him to step down.
-
Would it not be more relevant to consider if Labour is senile?
Does the Labour Party in its current form mean the same thing to future voters that it did in the past, and if not, what to do about it?
Stimulating discussion;
Labour can still survive, but only if it abandons hope of governing alone | George Monbiot | Opinion | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/labour-survive-governing-alone-political-alliance-unity-british-left-power)
Ready, Steady,......Off you go!
-
Copps mate. Read posts in context. It makes a lot more sense.
That 15% quote. I was responding to Wilts's admiration for how UKIP and Oidemos had captured the mood of "the people".
You're smarter than to just try to score cheap points.
-
PS. That Graeber article.
Every generation has its equivalent. They mean well. They REALLY mean well, because they KNOW that they are right and they know that it's them badtards over there who are stopping them.
Most often, they rail on the sideline, telling everyone else that they are wrong. Every once in a while, they get their hands on a chance to put their ideas into practice by taking control of a major party somewhere.
The results are never less than catastrophic. And then they move on, with their legend of why it was everyone else's fault but their. And someone else picks up the pieces and takes on the role of the next generation's demon.
I guess that by saying this, I'm one of the "elite who hate Corbyn", not someone tearing out his non-existent hair at allowing these well-meaning zealots to f**k us over again like they did 35 years ago.
-
Can someone show me, please, the evidence that this country has moved so markedly to the left then?
I see all the suggestions that Corbyn has support here, suport there, support everywhere; that Corbyn is going to win a general election this autumn. I hope he does. But the Labour Party has 'won' 9 general elections out of 19 since the War. of those wins, one led to a minority government, one had a majority of exactly 3, one had a majority of 4 and one had a majority of 5. One was won after more than decade of austerity and one was won after 4 consecutive Conservative election victories. Several of those Ministries didn't last very long.
To me that little list suggests that this country has only ever been a teensy, weensy little bit left of centre at best, and has often been significantly to the right of that. So what makes all you folk believe that for the first time in 71 years this country has moved, in the space of the 14 months since the last general election, far enough to the left to be sure that Jeremy Corbyn has the magic solution to the Labour Party's troubles? David Milliband, hardly a firebrand of the left, failed to win 14 months ago. The country wasn't left of centre enough even to accept him. So why are you so sure Jeremy Corbyn is going to win? As a person he is left of any Labour leader since Michael Foot. As a political gift to the Tory press he is joy unbounded. Why on Earth do you think the Tory press are leaving him relatively alone at the moment? For goodness sake people, look at what is and is not happening and work out why.
If Corbyn is still in charge come the next election, the Labour Party will come back with somewhere around 75 Members of Parliament. He won't even be the leader of the Official Opposition. He will have killed Labour for good. And you lot don't half look like Tory stalking horses tbh.
Cheers
BobG
-
Billy, so you dont believe that UKIP played a major part in the referedum result last week by acting as a catalyst for disatisfaction?
Following last Sunday's election Podimos gained 25% of the vote - just behind the People's Party on 29% which makes them the second largest party in Spain. If they can agree an alliance with the Socialist Workers Party this time, they will run the country. Not bad for a party that was only formed in 2014.
You have yet to comment on Trump?
I still maintain that these examples show a movement against mainstream politics, that 'outsiders' are capturing the mood of the people and Corbyn is our version of that. A third of the country didn't vote at the last election - that's a third of the country who didn't like Cameron or Milliband and wouldn't vote for them. That's Corbyn's potential electorate.
-
Wilts
I am not in any way disputing the fact that there is a swell of opinion against mainstream politics and politicians.
The issue is, where that goes. You are prsenting a string of heroic outsiders who have one thing in common in general elections. They are all losers. And you are presenting these as though they are an example to the Labour Party.
Now, if your agenda is that you'd be happy to see Labour out of power for a generation so long as that results in a radicalisation of the base for the future, then be upfront and say it.
Or, even better, form your own Podemos or UKIP and put the heavy lifting in that way.
-
Now, if your agenda is that you'd be happy to see Labour out of power for a generation so long as that results in a radicalisation of the base for the future, then be upfront and say it.
I personally would be happy with that as someone who doesn't see a centrist Labour Party being in power, or even in sight of it, for a long time. Are people really so willing to have a lame duck Labour party, pootling along winning safe seats and f**k all else for a decade because having a Labour Party be opposition in name alone is the most important thing? Is that what politics is about? The art of the possible but probably not?
What a genuinely lamentable state of affairs. And it's not because of Corbyn, either.
-
PS Wilts. Your Podemos election figures are wrong. You're quoting a late opinion poll, not the election result.
-
Noteworthy today that several Labour MPs (although the main target for criticism is Ian Austin) telling Corbyn to "sit down and shut up" among other things as he gave his response to the Chilcot report.
But no, it's definitely Corbyn that's the issue. No wonder deselections are being talked about.
-
Disgraceful. A measured and respectful speech interrupted by a jock strap C)nt. Should be relieved of his duties.
-
PS Wilts. Your Podemos election figures are wrong. You're quoting a late opinion poll, not the election result.
Not quite. I have quoted their % of the vote (which went up) but should have quoted the number of seats (which stayed the same) and means they are the third party.
-
Wilts
No. The figures you are quoting are precisely the vote shares reported in a late opinion poll.
The actual vote shares in the Election were.
Podemos: 21.1%
PSOE 22.2%
PP 33.3%
The seat shares were:
Podemos: 20.3%
PSOE: 24.3%
PP: 39.1%
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election,_2016
-
The reality is that Corbyn will always have the party membership...The membership is staunch left wing socialist..They simply don't have a horse to back other than Corbyn...It's getting to the stage that the parliamentary labour party is a separate entity to the membership..
One of Doncasters mp's is Caroline Flint, a mp who voted for all the wars, bombing of Syria etc etc..She doesn't give a toss about Doncaster and she's no socialist but a blairite..She was parachuted in against the local parties wishes because it's a safe seat...Yet the people still voted for her in the thousands...The policy's don't matter,you could stick a red rosette on a donkey in Donny and it would be voted in....
Those seats don't matter in elections...It's areas like mine who decide elections (nth Lincs) In the last 4 parliament's its been held by Labour twice and Conservatives twice...it's floating and the feeling round here is...How can you vote for a man who cant even run his own party never mind a country?????? It really is that simple....
In between all the slanging matches in this thread lies Wing Co's post which is absolutely spot on (and which everyone seems to have ignored). I am the archetypal floating voter, generally making my mind up who to vote for in the few weeks leading up to an election. I live in the Midlands these days and the vast majority of times that I talk about politics with anyone and mention Corbyn's name their first instinct is to laugh. Irrespective of his principals/ideas etc. many of which I'm sure would benefit me and millions like me, he is not seen as a credible Prime Minister by the majority of people outside of the Labour left wing heartlands (and by a lot in those heartlands by the look of things) - and on that basis he is never going to generate the support and votes the Labour party needs to form a government.
-
The reply to that would depend on whether you see him as a 'joke' based on his ideas, principles and policies or on his public persona. A thread that started with calling him senile, navigated to calling him intellectually moribund and has settled on him being a joke. This is what people are fed up about.
I think you're better than that Mick. I think you have a greater responsibility to make voting decision not based solely on a whim.
Irrespective of his principals/ideas etc. many of which I'm sure would benefit me and millions like me
Start here and work out what's wrong with this sentence.
-
Maybe I have done myself a bit of an injustice there (you might argue I have also done that to Corbyn). I do take a considerable amount of time to review the pro's and con's of my decisions, especially when it come to voting, but as I don't feel tied to any particular party, I can take my time to digest all the arguments, which usually means I will be prepared to make a 'late' decision.
Whether you like it or not, the problem is many people do see him as a joke and won't be able to see him as Prime Minister material no matter what benefits he may bring. I like to think that I am a reasonable person who can make his mind up based on facts rather than perceptions, but I really struggle to see him as he leader of the country - I would be concerned as to whether he could lead an effective cabinet and even more so that he could stand up for the country and be listened to by other world leaders on global matters. I don't think I am alone on that.
-
well 84 conservative MP's are
-
Copps
Your principles are admirable, but they aren't shared by the majority of the population.
Most people don't cogitate heavily on political detail. They see ten seconds of someone on the news. They need to see a crisp, unequivocal message, crisply delivered.
You don't like it. I don't like it. But that is how the world operates.
You know how to assess and critique claims and counter-claims. Most people don't. In the last few days before the Referendum, nearly 50% of people in a poll we sti of the opinion that a) the £350m a week was real, b) we were going to get that back and c) it was likely that a decent wedge would be spent on public service.
And that is what you are up against.
It's the reason why I was so f**king incandescent with Corbyn treating the campaign as an opportunity for nuanced debate, whilst Boris was hammering the "Let's Take Our Country Back" line.
It's shit, but that is what politics is. Get out of your bubble and talk to people about what they think of Corbyn as leader material. I don't move in particularly apathetic or particularly right-wing circles, but for every person I know who likes Corbyn, I know 4 who roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders when his name is mentioned.
-
Unfortunately, having a big majority to give you the title of leader doesn't mean that you'll be a good one.
-
Labour get elected when Labour supporters and floating voters vote in their favour.
If they rely on members of the Labour Party to get them elected then they might as well disband now.
The leader needs to be attractive to enough of the electorate to inspire confidence that they could form a government and then actually rule.
Who is going to be in his shadow cabinet? The big names and experienced MPs don't want to know.
If only the right wing media could get past the fact he cant tie his tie straight? God forbid his actual views get reported.
-
TTOI-surpassing levels of farce here - NEC votes on how to vote (a secret ballot is decided). Corbyn is asked to leave the chamber due to a conflict of interest but won't, as he's on the NEC anyway and Tom Watson hasn't been asked to leave despite also holding a conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, Angela Eagle asks Corbyn to condemn the attacks on her office, although it's pointed out he actually already has, and Angela just repeats herself, confused. Ruth Davidson the Scottish Tory MP makes several jibes towards Labour in a speech, and it's hard to disagree with any of what she says.
-
John McDonnell this morning: We don't want the party to split.
John McDonnell last night. https://mobile.twitter.com/BenQuinn75/status/752994128976285696/video/1
Diane Abbott's body language says it all. This man is not interested in keeping the Labour Party together or making it a credible electoral force. He's after the purge that he's wanted all his political life.
-
And just to clear up any lingering doubts, Owen Smith claims that when he warned McDonnell that the party might split, McDonnell shrugged his shoulders and said, "If that's what it takes."
When asked about that today, McDonnell says he has "no recollection" of saying that. The most weaselly political shorthand for "f**k! You've got me bang to rights. I've got to stonewall my way out."
These are the battle lines folks. McDonnell's not for compromising. If the destruction of the Labour Party is "what it takes", that's what will happen.
-
If it does split, the the conservative power to lead for a long time increases. They themselves are in a mess, but the labour party is nowhere near offering any challenge.
Angela Eagle might be a good politician, but she isn't somebody to compete to be pm. I see in the near future all parties breaking into bits, it's the way things are going, whichever side breaks up the least will be the next government.
There is an opportunity for the liberals, but they have far too much support to make up, but if the major parties split in two, and they don't, it could be a close run thing.
-
If it does split, the the conservative power to lead for a long time increases.
Not necessarily, if the centrists split and become the Official Opposition with airtime and PMQs to prove themselves and set out their stall, it might attract people as they'll have ditched and sidelined the far left that might have put them off before.
The SDP got a lot of support in the short term when they first formed, but they were still a small party of about 20 MPs. A split centrist party would be much bigger and whoever their leader was would have the benefit of being the Official Leader Of The Opposition to give them time to show statesmanship on the big stage.
-
As I've said before, there really is only one solution to the mess that politics currently is.
We HAVE to have full proportional representation.
The two-party system held for most of the period from 1925-2000-ish and FPTP was just about reasonable then. But it's utterly inadequate to the current five party system, which may very well be a six party system in Labour splits.
It's an affront to democracy to have a Govt with unfettered power having gained mid-30s% of the vote, the SNP winning all bar a couple of seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote, UKIP picking up 13% of the vote but only 0.2% of the seats.
It cannot be allowed to carry on like this a dim astonished that this isn't the number 1 theme on the political agenda right now.
-
It suited the two big parties though that's why they didn't want it.
The big losers now would be Tory and SNP parties. How do you get enough votes in parliament ?
It is the only fair way but it will take years to try and force through.
-
I agree. And it was stupid of Blair not to see this in 97. There has pretty much always been a centre-left majority in this country and he could have sealed that by bringing in PR in the late 90s.
The way you force it through is by making it a key policy of whatever Left parties we end up with plus UKIP and the LDs. The SNP could hardly veto it as they use PR in Scottish elections. You then argue the case relentlessly that this is the only way you can revitalise our democracy. Build on the fact that EVERYONE's vote mattered in the Referendum, but only a couple of million votes every really matter in General Elections. Push on the fact that anyone rejecting this is being massively undemocratic in a 5-6 party system. Get campaigns to demand it.
-
The country had the chance to have PR but they said no.
-
Yeah but we didn't though Glyn.
What was on offer in 2011 was a very, very weak version of PR. And it was proposed by a LD party whose support and credibility had fallen off a cliff.
Bad PR. Bad politics.
In any case, the situation has changed beyond recognition since then. The rise of UKIP and the SNP has cleared away the old situation. And the fact that UKIP got 3 times as many votes as the SNP in 15, but a fiftieth of the seats is utterly unacceptable in a democracy.
-
So how does anyone decide which of the myriad forms of PR is used? Who decides who sits in parliament - the parties or the electorate? How do you keep the relationship between an MP and a constituency - or do you ditch it? How do you avoid the stalemate of Belgium or the instability that used to plague Italy - because the PR you seem to be advocating would encourage parties to splinter leading to even more instability....
-
Glyn
Italy and Belgium are poor examples. Both are riven by far more serious regional divisions than we have in this country.
How about a combined constituency & party list system? It works perfectly well in Scotland and in Germany. and the excessive splintering can be dealt with by having a cut-off level of votes below which you get no seats.
I agree, no method of PR is perfect, but we're not looking for perfect. We're looking for something significantly better than the totally inappropriate system that we have.
I'm not aware of any other major state that has six parties each commanding >4% of the national vote, but which uses FPTP.
And it's obvious why. Look at the vote share of each party in 2015, divided by the percentage number of seats won (so a perfectly fair system would have everybody on 1, and a high number means the system is giving you fewer MPs than your vote share deserves).
Con: 0.72
Lab: 0.86
UKIP: 63!
LD: 6.6
SNP: 0.55
Green: 19
It's simply unacceptable in the current political structure to stick with the current system.
-
Con: 0.72
Lab: 0.86
UKIP: 63!
LD: 6.6
SNP: 0.55
Green: 19
It's simply unacceptable in the current political structure to stick with the current system.
63! is indeed a high number - about 1.98 x 1087, or approximately 2 followed by 87 zeroes
No wonder UKIP are complaining
Once a mathematician always a mathematician :coat:
-
The country had the chance to have PR but they said no.
Alternative Vote is not Proportional Representation.
-
As I've said before, there really is only one solution to the mess that politics currently is.
We HAVE to have full proportional representation.
The two-party system held for most of the period from 1925-2000-ish and FPTP was just about reasonable then. But it's utterly inadequate to the current five party system, which may very well be a six party system in Labour splits.
It's an affront to democracy to have a Govt with unfettered power having gained mid-30s% of the vote, the SNP winning all bar a couple of seats in Scotland on 50% of the vote, UKIP picking up 13% of the vote but only 0.2% of the seats.
It cannot be allowed to carry on like this a dim astonished that this isn't the number 1 theme on the political agenda right now.
I agree on PR but I can't let your last para go. It might be the No. 2 issue though.
Unless Labour commit to it though it's a non-starter. I agree about the SNP: Even though they benefit massively form FPTP at Westminster, they would look awfully hypocritical if they didn't agree to adopting the same system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
-
Like ukip or not, under the present system, they have one mp, when the amount who voted for them should have seen them have a lot of representatives. The present way of picking a government isn't the best way, it isn't fair to all parties, it favours the 'big two'.
-
Congratulations on summarising what everyone else said. :)