Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: SydneyRover on June 25, 2016, 08:01:20 am
-
Not happy with the decision, sign the petition to have it debated in parliament
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
-
Surely a democratic decision has been made.
-
Straws being clutched here I think
-
According to YouGov polling data, 75 per cent of 18- to 24-year olds voted to remain in the EU — compared to the 52 per cent of all Britons who voted to leave in the referendum.
A parliamentary petition calling for a second referendum has already gained more than 500,000 signatures — and caused the House of Commons website to periodically crash.
The petition calls on the British Government "to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60 per cent based a turnout less than 75 per cent there should be another referendum".
Over 650,000 hvae voted
-
It's complete rubbish. Very much an "oh we didn't win let's try change the rules". A petition there may be, but 17 million people spoke to leave on Thursday. It has to be respected.
-
It was an appalling campaign by both sides for differing reasons and we've ended up with a divided country where a large number of decent hard working people probably feel they are not welcome. I think the only people likely to get another vote are the Scots
-
It's complete rubbish. Very much an "oh we didn't win let's try change the rules". A petition there may be, but 17 million people spoke to leave on Thursday. It has to be respected.
Sorry, I think you are indeed incorrect.
-
It's complete rubbish. Very much an "oh we didn't win let's try change the rules". A petition there may be, but 17 million people spoke to leave on Thursday. It has to be respected.
Sorry, I think you are indeed incorrect.
Sydney,
Am I to understand then that you are not in favour of a democratic vote?
-
Straws being clutched here I think
Actually it may look that way but there is already a movement up and running on Social Media (where else these days) by lots of people who believe that they were misled duped tricked call it what you will by the Leave campaigners into voting for something that those same campaigners are now backtracking on already
1) The Leavers spokespeople are already trying to say that they did not promise to eradicate immigration altogether - in fact one I watched this morning was at pains to say that he always spelled out what is now his position - and NOT that there would be no immigration
2) They have finally admitted that their Battle bus was wrongly labelled with "We give £350 mill per week to the EU" and having gone on to say whilst campaigning that money will go straight to our priorities including the NHS they now say that money is / was not £350 mill actually and so we have less to direct at those priorities
We had and still have lucrative PPI industries because people were mis-sold those Policies and so perhaps this issue has legs too on the same basis ?
After all it would only have taken 600,000 ish or so people to have voted Remain and the world would look a different place. Yes 6 full Wembley Stadiums worth of voters would have been close to a tie and I am heartily SICK already of hearing :
a) this was a decisive victory. No it was not (although pedantically it produced a decision) IMO 51.9 to 49.1 is not THAT decisive BUT devisive as I hope we don't find out
b) Old Scrotes, Pensioners, Baby Boomers call them what you will are to blame for voting out. You can pick apart the votes how you like and perhaps we will have someone do it but I know only one of my circle of friends in that age zone who voted OUT and he has Kids and Grandkids. I know 15 to 20 who voted remain and several like me have no kids and no Grandkids. I voted to hopefully produce a decent future for the younger generations but who knows they may still get that having been taken out of the EU. Who knows realistically ?
I will come back in 10 years god willing and take up where I left off
-
I am quoting the rules as they appear to stand, vote count over 750,000
-
I am quoting the rules as they appear to stand, vote count over 750,000
770121 as I added my signature a minute ago
They (Cameron) should never have opened this Referendum up. They are our elected representatives and we elected them to take decisions for us and they should never have opened this up for us lay people in the main to decide upon. FFS those eminent people campaigning did not know what the effect on voting Leave or Remain would produce so how the hell did they expect US to know ?
-
I am quoting the rules as they appear to stand, vote count over 750,000
770121 as I added my signature a minute ago
They (Cameron) should never have opened this Referendum up. They are our elected representatives and we elected them to take decisions for us and they should never have opened this up for us lay people in the main to decide upon. FFS those eminent people campaigning did not know what the effect on voting Leave or Remain would produce so how the hell did they expect US to know ?
That was something that concerned me all through this campaign Donnywolf, if the people who are supposed to know the workings of the EU can't decide what's the best way to go then how could they expect the general public to make an INFORMED decision.
-
My opinion is that the only one who won (at this moment) after this decision, is Putin. Everyone knows he wants a weaker Europe, because his biggest dream is to bring back the Soviet Union (he said this at television)...he started with Crimea, a part of Ukraine.
The thing is that this decision will affect entire Europe and UK. Nobody knows how, maybe it will be better for your country, maybe not, time will tell.
-
It's complete rubbish. Very much an "oh we didn't win let's try change the rules". A petition there may be, but 17 million people spoke to leave on Thursday. It has to be respected.
I agree in a way BFYP ... but 17 Million or 51.9 % said leave and some of them already say they have been duped or conned into voting that way
Democracy also involves the concept of free speech so those who have a gripe should surely be allowed to complain - and by that I mean the 16 + Millions who wanted to stay AND those who voted to leave under false pretences / promises. It will be interesting to see how this pans out but I did say if the Vote was for Remain by any margin - even 60 40 that the Exiters would keep going on and on and on until they got a second Referendum or even a third till they won - but if the vote was even the closest possible at say 50.1 to 49.9 to leave that would be that. We would be out and no way back.
And so it has turned out - we are out despite nearly half of all the population that bothered to vote did not want to be !
-
The referedum vote isn't legally binding anyway so if the government dont want to abide by it they dont have to - there is no need for a second referendum. Imagine the fuss if they did that though!
Although I dont like the result I do think it was the right thing to do. Over half the country voted in that last election for a party who promised a referendum, certainly well over half of England, because it is what people wanted. We dont live in a communist or facist state (yet) the government should be doing what the people want.
The problem was the poor quality of the debate particuarly on the Remain side. If they had focused on the positive reasons for being part of the EU, trade, travel, social and environmental policy and the economy, then people would have been more able to make an informed decision.
-
A democratic decision has been made, if you can't accept the result because you lost then maybe North Korea is the place for you
-
Brexit: Young Britons use social media to declare the EU referendum result #NotInMyName
-
A democratic decision has been made, if you can't accept the result because you lost then maybe North Korea is the place for you
Quoting the rules:
The petition calls on the British Government "to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60 per cent based a turnout less than 75 per cent there should be another referendum".
See you up there!
-
If the remain campaign are feeling gutted over here god knows how they must be feeling in Gibraltar where 95% voted to remain
-
David Cameron played a risky game that has completely backfired on him.
In his last term of parliament he promised a referendum but set the date for June 2016.
Why did he set the date so far in the future was asked. Simply so that the referendum would be in the next parliamentary term.
He loaded the bullets fully expecting Labour to win the last election so that they would have to pull the trigger.
Lo and behold labour messed it up and against all the odds Cameron got back in and was left with no alternative than hold the referendum he so wanted to be undertaken under a labour government.
Cameron's remain campaign was so desperate he rolled out project fear instead of sticking to facts and 'potential' outcomes as opposed to the hysterical threats he tried to scare everyone with - ultimately he pushed project fear too far and turned people against his campaign.
Now despite previously stating he would run his full term in office he resigns and leaves it to the new PM to formally invoke the leave process. On paper he didn't take us out of Europe.
Now the belief is that once a new PM is in place they will call a general election within a year (fully expecting to lose) which would then in all probability result in a Labour Government actually governing through the exit.
Cameron is a media savvy weasel who's luck has run out
-
Now despite previously stating he would run his full term in office he resigns and leaves it to the new PM to formally invoke the leave process. On paper he didn't take us out of Europe.
Why should he get the blame for not getting all the fantasy concessions the Leavers conned people into thinking the EU would be falling over themselves to give us in the Exit negotiations?
-
Cameron didn't set the date for June 2016. He imposed that on himself later. He committed to hold a referendum before the end of 2017.
In any case, he expected to be leading another coalition, and he knew the Lib Dems would not agree to a referendum.
-
Should he get more blame for not over exaggerating the concessions that he came back with?
-
It smacks of the SNP approach. Keep holding referendums until you get the right result. Although I think Referendum 2.0 is highly unlikely, at the moment I wouldn't rule anything out.
PS. I can think of a scenario in which it would happen, but it requires so many different things to fall into place that it is highly unlikely.
-
Should he get more blame for not over exaggerating the concessions that he came back with?
I thought he did over-exaggerate them. Everyone could see they didn't amount to much and didn't have any force in EU law.
The European Parliament could have blocked them had it been so minded. It probably would if we'd voted to remain and then vetoed the proposed budget increases.
-
Sorry RB, I meant to should he not have got more blame for over exaggerating.
I think that we would have got a kicking from the EU had we remained but now get a kicking as they said about Admiral Byng, pour encourage les autres
-
Sorry RB, I meant to should he not have got more blame for over exaggerating.
I think that we would have got a kicking from the EU had we remained but now get a kicking as they said about Admiral Byng, pour encourage les autres
Strikes me there are two ways the EU could go in response to Brexit and we're already seeing it. Some like Juncker want to play hardball and get the UK out asap. Others like Merkel and Tusk are much more conciliatory and are prepared to take as long as needed.
Worth noting that as far as I'm aware only a country that wants to leave can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, so for now Merkel will probably prevail.
-
I've signed it.
I cannot believe I now live in such a backwards looking, introspective, xenophobic little country. And actually I don't, and all credit to the young people who want their future in Europe.
-
A democratic decision has been made?
Hello the people of Britain, we are the political class. To settle some internal differences in our party (elected on 30% of the national vote) we have decided to give you the people a YES or NO decision on vast swathes of life only really connected in name. This is your 11th opportunity to do this in 40 odd years so make the most of it.
Immigration, Common agricultural policy, Common fisheries policy, Trade agreements with the rest of the world, Open trade with Europe, Funding for science, funding redistribution to poorer parts of Europe, the European parliament, commission, court, council. All of this we are saying to you the people YES or NO. It seems simple and it is.
What is more, we are now going to campaign on these two democratic choices not based on facts, information and reasoned debate but on lies, hostility, fear and scare-mongering. Both sides of the debate will be engaging in this to make it fair and democratic of course.
Once we've split the nation pretty much down the middle and exposed the multitude of socio-economic differences that separate us (we probably should have dealt with those earlier hehe) there will be a period where we have to re-distribute our own jobs (we'll decide that bit) and then re-negotiate our relationship with Europe. We'll decide that bit also.
Tally ho.
-
Having seen the amount of back tracking from the brevity campaigners yesterday and this morning I'm reminded of John lyndon's quote "ever get the feeling you've been had!"
-
Petition 1,190,000 +
-
Over the last couple of days people have been blaming a certain portion of the country for voting out. Why not blame the 13 million or so eligible voters who could not be arse to get off their fat arses and vote. Those are the ones we should really be having a go at for not being arsed enough to vote in what will probably the most important political decision in their/our life time
-
I wonder how many of these are actually people that voted to leave though?
If a good proportion that voted out felt misrepresented that is different to somebody voting to remain wanting another chance.
To be fair we are lied to by all parties at elections.
750,000 that actually voted out changing their mind three days ago and we would be having the same arguement from the other side.
I think the big loser here after the UK is Merkel's Germany, she has lost her staunchest and most powerful ally.
-
If a good proportion that voted out felt misrepresented that is different to somebody voting to remain wanting another chance.
I wanted out in many respects but felt criminally misrepresented by the out-campaign to the point I protested by voting to remain.
-
Over the last couple of days people have been blaming a certain portion of the country for voting out. Why not blame the 13 million or so eligible voters who could not be arse to get off their fat arses and vote. Those are the ones we should really be having a go at for not being arsed enough to vote in what will probably the most important political decision in their/our life time
That's the same with any vote, if all the people that worked for wages voted for the political parties that should serve them then the conservatives would never get in in the first place. Alf Garnet rings a bell. But what is wrong with this vote is that Britain has let it's young people down by looking inward instead of outwards.
-
A democratic decision has been made, if you can't accept the result because you lost then maybe North Korea is the place for you
A repost from earlier, there would be hell on if the vote went the other way and petitions were started, we are where we are through the democratic process, good or bad we need to get on with it now and stop crying like babies because yoou haven't got your own way
-
Filo
At midnight in Thursday, Farage was already laying the ground for precisely that. He was ranting about the delay to the voter registration deadline and how it had been undemocratic.
Strange how that argument suddenly vanished overnight.
I'm not in favour of any move to overturn this vote, but spare us the injured sanctimony, eh?
-
If England lose to Iceland and we don't like the result maybe we could sign a petition to play the game again until the result favours us? #Brexit
Stolen from facebook, but sums thigs up perfectly
-
Don't fancy North Korea thanks.
France beckons..........
-
The problem with an online petition is that it's a load of crap.
- You can be 16 and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be a foreigner in the UK and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be outside of the UK and sign it, but you may not be legally entitled to vote.
erm ... 'Foreigners' in the UK were allowed to vote if they were a national of a commonwealth country, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.
Likewise UK nationals living abroad for less than 15 years were entitled to vote.
Rather than 'a load of crap' I think it points to some of the idiosyncrasies of our so called democracy. 16/17 year olds and EU national living in Britain were wrongly disenfranchised in the referendum vote. That they may chose to exercise other democratic rights (such as sign an online petition) is completely their right and part of democracy.
See.. that's the problem with democracy. You give people a say and a vote and they go on expecting a say and vote. Quite opposite to the 'you've had your say now take your medicine' of those who actually think democracy has somehow won.
-
in this political correct world perhaps if they had announced the result as :-
the winner as the "leave" party
and the runner up as the "remains"
then the fact that a democratic vote had taken place might have been easier to swallow for the losers (sorry runners up)
maybe the wrong type of pencil was to blame
best of 3 anyone
-
The problem with an online petition is that it's a load of crap.
- You can be 16 and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be a foreigner in the UK and sign it, but you're not legally entitled to vote.
- You can be outside of the UK and sign it, but you may not be legally entitled to vote.
- You can also sign it twice (under different names/aliases) - completely against the rules of a referendum.
It's all well and good that 'Numpty in the North' voted leave and now wishes she hadn't, but equally 'Softy in the South' might have voted remain and changed her mind since then.
It's swings and roundabouts.
If the remain voters don't like it, it's too late - they knew Thursday was their chance to go out and vote and evidently they're either in the minority or enough of them didn't get off their backsides and vote.
Gathering together on the social taliban to create an 'outraged of UK' petition will have zero effect - regardless of the amount of signatures it receives.
A petition is just a petition, doesn't count as a vote.
Whether it gets acted on or ignored is another matter - how people voted originally doesn't matter, this is just a petition to reconsider the referendum.
So its not a load of crap, it just is what it is...
As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.
Of course, if that was to have happened it should have been said before. That or make voting compulsory but offer a "neither/don't care" option to tick.
-
As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.
Is that a joke, you can't just presume they didn't want to leave because they haven't voted because if they wanted to remain they could have voted that way. They had there chance to vote its their fault if they didn't take the opportunity.
There are a lot of bad losers in this debate.
-
As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.
Is that a joke, you can't just presume they didn't want to leave because they haven't voted because if they wanted to remain they could have voted that way. They had there chance to vote its their fault if they didn't take the opportunity.
There are a lot of bad losers in this debate.
No it is not a joke, and it is not about being a bad loser either.
The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..
But, if you want to stay in the EU that means keeping things as they are, therefore the only people wanting to change are those who voted out. Therefore if you don't vote, or don't care, the argument is that you don't feel strong enough to want a change...
Maybe it would be fairer of me to suggest that the winning post - for either in or out - should have been set at 50% plus one vote of the whole quantity of entitled voters?
For example if there were 40 million eligible voters, the winning target is 20,000,001 - regardless of whether only 70% ish voted?
What that means is that the winner would have had a clear and definite majority, regardless of any assumptions as to the preferences of the non-voters?
-
As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.
Is that a joke, you can't just presume they didn't want to leave because they haven't voted because if they wanted to remain they could have voted that way. They had there chance to vote its their fault if they didn't take the opportunity.
There are a lot of bad losers in this debate.
No it is not a joke, and it is not about being a bad loser either.
The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..
But, if you want to stay in the EU that means keeping things as they are, therefore the only people wanting to change are those who voted out. Therefore if you don't vote, or don't care, the argument is that you don't feel strong enough to want a change...
Maybe it would be fairer of me to suggest that the winning post - for either in or out - should have been set at 50% plus one vote of the whole quantity of entitled voters?
For example if there were 40 million eligible voters, the winning target is 20,000,001 - regardless of whether only 70% ish voted?
What that means is that the winner would have had a clear and definite majority, regardless of any assumptions as to the preferences of the non-voters?
But there not the rules so accept the result
-
Where does it say I have not accepted the result? Show me?
I just had an opinion on how the voting could have been organised, but even if it had then more people may have been compelled to vote to leave, to ensure they won - and may have still done so.
I may well be disappointed with the result, the process and the spin and lies, but there is no choice but to accept the result is there?
-
The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..
That's quite correct. Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side. Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same.
Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process.
A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic). Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world. Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout. Not perfect, but much better than our current system.
-
The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..
That's quite correct. Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side. Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same.
Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process.
A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic). Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world. Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout. Not perfect, but much better than our current system.
I agree. Make voting compulsory and there is no argument. But you need to have the "neither/none of the above" option (IMHO)..
My first scenario would only work for a 2-option vote if it was made abundantly clear well in advance that a no-show meant a default vote for one of the options. That would force more to vote therefore you get a gruer reflection.
I don't like the result, but I accept it. What rankles more is the spin and lies, which is why I would argue for the "neither" option for a compulsory vote.
-
I am worried about the influx of immigrants from Costa del..... They are beyond working age so will have to be supported by the younger generations.. How will our NHS cope?? Very worried.
-
As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.
Are you on drugs?
who the f**k are you? On drugs my arse??
It was just a thought, that this vote was so important that EVERYONE's vote had to happen. I said earlier in this thread (if you read on), on reflection, that maybe the winning post vote count should be half the total number of ELIGIBLE voters plus one. Therefore to win with 40,000,000 eligible voters you need to get 20,000,001 votes, regardless of the actual voting turnout. In this case, neither option got 50% (plus 1 vote) of the total electorate.
If you look at it that way, does that not make more sense? So that an absolute majority of the electorate has to favour in or out, therefore including the non-voters but not assuming what their non-vote means?
-
You obviously believe in democracy - until the result goes against you, then you want a referendum to protest against the result of a referendum.
Stop telling folks what you THINK they believe, when you have no idea.
Read my post again - I have admitted on reflection that my thought on non-voters being counted as remain was wrong, then I offered an alternative that does take into account all the electorate but which doesn't make any assumption as to their preferences, yet you choose to ignore that in your post, but continued to argue against an opinion that I had already corrected - TWICE!
If you are going to respond, at least respond to what I have said last, not something else.
Are you a politician?
-
You obviously believe in democracy - until the result goes against you, then you want a referendum to protest against the result of a referendum.
Stop telling folks what you THINK they believe, when you have no idea.
You don't believe in democracy?
Yes I do, but I have the right (as does anyone else) to question processes etc.
Do you think it would be better to have the winning post set at half the total electorate plus one, thereby guaranteeing an absolute majority - especially in such an important one-off vote???
-
But surely a first past the post system that doesn't achieve a result is fairer - idealistic maybe, but fairer?
In this scenario it doesn't need a 100% turnout - If you get a 75% turnout and 2/3rds of them vote one way, that's 50% of the total. So as I said, it doesn't matter what the turnout actually is, as long as the winning target is hit.
It is not that unusual to set an absolute majority - how many scenarios require 2/3rds or 3/4s of votes to go one way - in boardrooms and organisations, to "win"?
I am not saying I cannot accept the referendum result, just that the voting system could be better, as it most certainly could be for the general elections too.
-
Can we replay the Crewe game until we get a result that suits us but not others?
-
As for the referendum, it is my opinion that if a person didn't vote for whatever reason, then they had not chosen to leave (otherwise they should vote leave) - therefore the number of non-voters should be added to the remain pile.
Are you on drugs?
Why? Do you want to buy some ?
;)
-
Words fail me with some people...Shall we have a best out of 3? Or if you don't win that,maybe you want to change the rules again...The countrys spoken,its time to get on with it and make it work...Everybody had there chance...
-
Can we replay the Crewe game until we get a result that suits us but not others?
Er, I was debating a more equitable voting system, in the off-topic section. Nowt to do with football.
And whilst I think the voting system isn't perfect, I wasn't questioning the result - under the system we used in thursday the leave vote won, simples.
-
You obviously believe in democracy - until the result goes against you, then you want a referendum to protest against the result of a referendum.
Stop telling folks what you THINK they believe, when you have no idea.
You don't believe in democracy?
Don't you just love the way Rigo only quotes the first half of the line he wrote?
-
Not happy with the decision, sign the petition to have it debated in parliament
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
has anyone realised yet that this is an own goal petition ?
the actual words are "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum"
if the above was enacted in law then accordingly in order to rejoin the vote to rejoin must be more than 60%
very few laws are retrospective
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06454/SN06454.pdf
the pleader of the petition must feel just like the Northern Ireland center half when he also scored an own goal
quote from the link
1 What is retrospective legislation?
Retrospective legislation is generally defined as legislation which ‘takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past’.
1 According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, retrospective (or retroactive) legislation is:
Legislation that operates on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalizing conduct that was lawful when it occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.
2 Under its entry for ‘retrospective’ Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases outlines the principle: … ‘nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non prœteritis’, that is unless there be clear words to the contrary statutes ‘do not apply to a past, but to a future, state or circumstance’.
3 The previous Government’s position on introducing retrospective legislation was set out by Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from Jonathan Sayeed:
Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of retrospective legislation.
The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply. The Government's policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998.4
this petition would make it harder to come back in 60% vote needed !!! so effectively it's a STAY OUT PETITION
-
Not happy with the decision, sign the petition to have it debated in parliament
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
has anyone realised yet that this is an own goal petition ?
the actual words are "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum"
if the above was enacted in law then accordingly in order to rejoin the vote to rejoin must be more than 60%
very few laws are retrospective
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06454/SN06454.pdf
the pleader of the petition must feel just like the Northern Ireland center half when he also scored an own goal
quote from the link
1 What is retrospective legislation?
Retrospective legislation is generally defined as legislation which ‘takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past’.
1 According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, retrospective (or retroactive) legislation is:
Legislation that operates on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalizing conduct that was lawful when it occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.
2 Under its entry for ‘retrospective’ Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases outlines the principle: … ‘nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non prœteritis’, that is unless there be clear words to the contrary statutes ‘do not apply to a past, but to a future, state or circumstance’.
3 The previous Government’s position on introducing retrospective legislation was set out by Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from Jonathan Sayeed:
Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of retrospective legislation.
The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply. The Government's policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998.4
this petition would make it harder to come back in 60% vote needed !!! so effectively it's a STAY OUT PETITION
You're making the massive, massive assumption we'd need to hold another referendum to go into Europe again. We didn't in 1973 and we still don't need to have one...
-
Over the last couple of days people have been blaming a certain portion of the country for voting out. Why not blame the 13 million or so eligible voters who could not be arse to get off their fat arses and vote. Those are the ones we should really be having a go at for not being arsed enough to vote in what will probably the most important political decision in their/our life time
That's the same with any vote, if all the people that worked for wages voted for the political parties that should serve them then the conservatives would never get in in the first place. Alf Garnet rings a bell. But what is wrong with this vote is that Britain has let it's young people down by looking inward instead of outwards.
Have you thought that the people who voted us out are those that voted us in in the first place and they voted us out because it is not what we voted for in the first place. They exercised their democratic right to vote which ever way they choose. If the younger generation are pissed with this decision then they should have gotten off their collective arses and voted on mass to stay.
-
Not happy with the decision, sign the petition to have it debated in parliament
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
has anyone realised yet that this is an own goal petition ?
the actual words are "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum"
if the above was enacted in law then accordingly in order to rejoin the vote to rejoin must be more than 60%
very few laws are retrospective
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06454/SN06454.pdf
the pleader of the petition must feel just like the Northern Ireland center half when he also scored an own goal
quote from the link
1 What is retrospective legislation?
Retrospective legislation is generally defined as legislation which ‘takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past’.
1 According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, retrospective (or retroactive) legislation is:
Legislation that operates on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalizing conduct that was lawful when it occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.
2 Under its entry for ‘retrospective’ Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases outlines the principle: … ‘nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non prœteritis’, that is unless there be clear words to the contrary statutes ‘do not apply to a past, but to a future, state or circumstance’.
3 The previous Government’s position on introducing retrospective legislation was set out by Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from Jonathan Sayeed:
Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of retrospective legislation.
The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply. The Government's policy before introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998.4
this petition would make it harder to come back in 60% vote needed !!! so effectively it's a STAY OUT PETITION
You're making the massive, massive assumption we'd need to hold another referendum to go into Europe again. We didn't in 1973 and we still don't need to have one...
He's making an even bigger asumption its a law. It's not. The (first) referendum was only for guidance and the government is not bound to accept the result if it does not wish to. Unless it changes the law, then neither would the result of any future referendum be legally binding.
Thus Coleman's whole post is pointless. Unlike Chesterfield who are yet to be deducted the three points (s)he kept going on, and on, and on, and on...about.
-
I interpret the petition - if it was (unlikely) to be successful - is intended to get the government to ignore the vote and not to pull out of the EU. No need to vote back in.
I doubt however that this will work..
-
bedtime reading
-
:) :) :) https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/138891/moderation-info
hmnn it appears to have been removed
however it basically said "If we lose against Iceland we demand a replay"
-
I like this one...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/141855/moderation-info
-
I like this one...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/141855/moderation-info
same one ...... but lo and behold its vanished :)
-
bedtime reading
I'll wait for the film.
-
The petition is calling for a debate in parliament, 1,000,000 signatures are required before a debate can be called for.
The petition calls on the British Government to implement a rule:
"that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60 per cent based a turnout less than 75 per cent there should be another referendum".
These are the rules about the vote, it's no good complaining that the rules are not fair after the vote has taken place and whether to were happy with the result or not, these are the rules, it's fairly straight forward.
The petition has now reached 2,600,000 +
-
They should do the same for industrial action,there would never be a strike again
-
The decision has been made, nothing will change that now. It doesn't matter if it was older people, which i doubt, a wide range of people will have voted leave. Many have voted leave around my age, in they're thirties, i know very few people who wanted to remain.
This referendum, could be the start, of the end of the parties in they're current form, it is getting near to the time, when they will be disbanded, and new ways of politics will be created.
I didn't vote conservative in the last election, but you didn't see me wanting another go at it. It's not backward looking to vote to come out of something that was restricting the country from it's full potential. It was forward thinking, to dare to dream that things could be much better, by leaving!.
-
The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..
That's quite correct. Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side. Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same.
Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process.
A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic). Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world. Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout. Not perfect, but much better than our current system.
Of course you might have got a bigger vote to Leave if you'd got more voters out.
-
The decision has been made, nothing will change that now. It doesn't matter if it was older people, which i doubt, a wide range of people will have voted leave. Many have voted leave around my age, in they're thirties, i know very few people who wanted to remain.
This referendum, could be the start, of the end of the parties in they're current form, it is getting near to the time, when they will be disbanded, and new ways of politics will be created.
I didn't vote conservative in the last election, but you didn't see me wanting another go at it. It's not backward looking to vote to come out of something that was restricting the country from it's full potential. It was forward thinking, to dare to dream that things could be much better, by leaving!.
No it's not wrong to dare to dream like that Sammy. But when you vote for that dream without any sort of plan or policy to achieve it and in the face of opinion from 75% of our political class and the majority of professional economists, that's all it is. A fantasy.
-
Petition Vote required to force parliamentary debate : 100,000
Petition Vote at the last count.................................: 2,999,000
-
Petition Vote required to force parliamentary debate : 100,000
Petition Vote at the last count.................................: 2,999,000
Thought 100k was for it to be considered for debate, does not mean parliament has to debate it.
-
Petition Vote required to force parliamentary debate : 100,000
Petition Vote at the last count.................................: 2,999,000
ON A LIGHTER NOTE
might a well go for the double with an EDM
this is one of the better ones COYR
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2002-03/1175
-
If all those that voted remain signed it it could be 15 million signatures so its irrelevant really
-
The guy who started it is actually a leave campaigner.
-
The guy who started it is actually a leave campaigner.
Yes who 48 hours later has seen the "promises" the Leave side basically get rowed back on (or worse they denied saying some of them) leading him to believe like PPI he was mis sold !
-
We've had the vote, remarkably 33m people voted, we have a decision. End of!
Not really. We have given the politicians a task and their response is to start all kinds of party politics tricks, resignations etc. Very disappointing.
The government gave us two options, remain or leave, they should have been ready for either outcome and the wishes of the (majority of) voters should be carried out. All this " I resign" business by the MPs, is wrong, they should just get on with making the people's wishes come to pass, as quickly as possible. Delaying matters is not good for anyone and will not change the result.
-
An open question - how many of those 33 million voters now feel mislead (whether in or out) due to the political rhetoric (ie lies and spin) that we always get?
We have a general election every 5 years where we can vote to put right what we were lied about at the previosu election - how can we put right the lies from this referendum?
-
Ferriby.
Cameron resigned because made a misjudgement of historic proportions and had lost all credibility.
Labour Shadow Cabinet members are resigning because they can no longer work under what they see as an incompetent leader who's poor leadership was a major factor in the way the referendum went.
These aren't people playing "party political tricks". They are people acting from principle.
-
Ferriby.
Cameron resigned because made a misjudgement of historic proportions and had lost all credibility.
Labour Shadow Cabinet members are resigning because they can no longer work under what they see as an incompetent leader who's poor leadership was a major factor in the way the referendum went.
These aren't people playing "party political tricks". They are people acting from principle.
I don't quite agree on Corbyn, BST. I don't think the opinion of those who resigned today has changed. What has changed is that a General Election could be called in the next 6 months. So they need a credible leader now, not in 3-4 years' time.
Although from some of the names I've heard floated as a possible successor to Corbyn, I'm not convinced they are a vast improvement.
-
Corbyn is the man to blame for the resignations, you can't call for unity on one hand and then sack a member of your shadow cabinet on the other
-
TRB
I agree that the Shadow Cabinet members who've resigned have never liked Corbyn. But they had to respect his election until things materially changed. They have materially changed now. Corbyn's now shown his modus operandi in a major campaign. He has demonstrated that he is an appalling leader. So the campaign has acted as the catalyst to make the Labour shadow cabinet act.
-
How many is it now that since he was elected leader have been sacked/have resigned or said right from the start that they won't serve in a Shadow cabinet under him? If Corbyn keeps hanging on the Shadow Cabinet will only have a full complement after the barrel has been scraped..!
-
It seems to me Corbyn still has popular support at a time when mis-trust for politicians and alienation from politics is at its highest.
Not one of these shadow cabinet ministers has taken any personal responsibility (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-resignation-letters-full-what-8286309) for the 'failure' of the remain vote. Not one seems to acknowledge any form of collective responsibility. Were they not campaigning too?
This is an extension of the politics people mistrust. It's cultish, reactive, undemocratic, personality politics decided behind closed doors. You have people like Ann Coffey saying 'his body language was all wrong', for example. I mean, are we really going to sacrifice substance and principle for this?
If they succeed, it will damage the labour party for a long time. They won't get my vote, not now, and not for the foreseeable future.
-
By the same token shouldn't a party leader take ultimate responsibility when he fails to lead adequately?
-
Copps.
Corbyn has popular support? What?
He's been in the job 9 months. His "doing a good job" rating is -22%. This is his honeymoon period. He's faced a utterly divided and internally arguing Tory party. And he's at depths that Ed Milliband took 4 years to plumb.
More than all of that, he is simply NOT a leader. As one Labour MP put it today, leaders have to find ways to bring diverse opinions together into a coherent conclusion. Corbyn has spent 30 years in rooms where everyone agrees with each other.
And then there is the Referendum campaign.
What woukd you have expected Corbyn to be doing 2 days before the vote? I'd have expected him to be demanding BBC and ITV news time to give a passionate and unequivocal message to Labour supporters. To have used Churchill's advice, " If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
Do you know what he actually did on Tuesday? He spent time talking to an obscure progressive American webcaster about how flawed the EU was and how, maybe, perhaps, on balance, it was the right thing, maybe to stay in.
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16321
It's not good enough Copps. This isn't a f**king Student Union debate that Corbyn was taking part in. Fail to give a powerful and unambiguous steer to the Labour support and you leave the vacuum that Farage has rushed into. Corbyn has been a disaster AS A LEADER. Whatever you think of his policies (and I agree with many of them) he has failed in the most important moment that he will ever face. And he has to go.
-
He's been virtually invisible and when he has deigned to say anything he's been wishy-washy and ineffective. Being a leader is a job, not just a job title.
-
By the same token shouldn't a party leader take ultimate responsibility when he fails to lead adequately?
That all depends if you or he thinks that? Corbyn was the only party leader and major figure who told the truth throughout the campaign. What you and this group of career politicans at Westminster have failed to come to terms with is that it was their message that people didn't like - not the bloke who was delivering it.
What we have just seen is the right wing taking control of the agenda of British politics, its all the immigrants faults, kick'em out, we can survive on our own because we are a great empire, very much like the 1930's. Which came about in part because the Labour Party tore itself apart to keep power rather than address public concern.
I agree with Copps, if Westminster Labour go against the wishes of their membership in order to find another leader who will create a New New Labour, they wont see power again for years. It took a world war after 1931. Get real people.
-
BST,
64% of Labour members would block attempts to oust Corbyn (https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/75078/labour-support-jeremy-corbyn-grows-poll)
(72% believe he is doing a good job.)
He has the support of Unite Union (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/labour-mutineers-betraying-national-interest?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
200k people in a very short time have signed a vote of confidence petition in favour of Corbyn. (https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/a-vote-of-confidence-in-jeremy-corbyn-after-brexit)
He practicaly doubled labour party membership within months (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/13/revealed-how-jeremy-corbyn-has-reshaped-the-labour-party)
Not forgetting the fact that he was elected with a huge mandate less than a year ago (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-wins-labour-party-leadership-election)
I've also read of his impact on social media, and it's quite impressive. If you want anecdotal evidence, among my peers and age group he is held in a very very high regard. Unlike any other politician I've known.
Is this evidence enough?
-
Wilts.
Watch that bloody video that I posted.
What the f**k did he think that was going to achieve, 36 hours before the polls opened? What message was that going to get into living rooms in Doncaster.
It is self-indulgence to an unbelievable degree.
And. Note that when he was asked directly if he was actually in favour of us leaving the EU, a plain, simple direct question, he refused to answer it.
You can't DO that in such important moments in politics. This is not a debating society. This is what is going to shape our country for the next half century. M
At best, he's been meaningless in this campaign. At worst, mendacious. Either way, he CANNOT remain as Labour leader.
-
Copps.
For Christ's sake! The Labour Party membership is 0.5% of the f**king population. His job is not to make Labour Party members feel good about themselves. It is to convince the f**king country out there.
-
By the same token shouldn't a party leader take ultimate responsibility when he fails to lead adequately?
In a democracy shouldn't we all take a .. erm .. collective responsibility?
As it stands, this labour lot are the ones who have acted first. It was THEY who published these letters. And NOT ONE says 'look, we've let the public down' or 'we've clearly failed to stay in touch with the people we are meant to represent' and therefore 'I don't believe my position is tenable'. No, they say they don't believe Corbyn is the right personality to take the labour movement forward!
Is that not telling to you? Do you not see an ounce of wider predicament we are in here?
-
Copps.
Corbyn has popular support? What?
He's been in the job 9 months. His "doing a good job" rating is -22%. This is his honeymoon period. He's faced a utterly divided and internally arguing Tory party. And he's at depths that Ed Milliband took 4 years to plumb.
More than all of that, he is simply NOT a leader. As one Labour MP put it today, leaders have to find ways to bring diverse opinions together into a coherent conclusion. Corbyn has spent 30 years in rooms where everyone agrees with each other.
And then there is the Referendum campaign.
What woukd you have expected Corbyn to be doing 2 days before the vote? I'd have expected him to be demanding BBC and ITV news time to give a passionate and unequivocal message to Labour supporters. To have used Churchill's advice, " If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
Do you know what he actually did on Tuesday? He spent time talking to an obscure progressive American webcaster about how flawed the EU was and how, maybe, perhaps, on balance, it was the right thing, maybe to stay in.
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16321
It's not good enough Copps. This isn't a f**king Student Union debate that Corbyn was taking part in. Fail to give a powerful and unambiguous steer to the Labour support and you leave the vacuum that Farage has rushed into. Corbyn has been a disaster AS A LEADER. Whatever you think of his policies (and I agree with many of them) he has failed in the most important moment that he will ever face. And he has to go.
So both Corbyn and leave were put to a democratic vote, and you say both were wrong lol. Out of all the politicians he was the one the lied the least . But your right he's no leader .
-
And regarding your peers and age group, did you not notice that their support for Remain was overwhelmed by the less idealistic beliefs of the older generations?
It's not all about you, the people you tweet with and their brothers and sisters. God knows, I wish it was, because I suspect we'd get a better outcome.
But a Labour leader has to reach out to an enormous coalition of voters. From young, idealistic graduates, to lonely, suspicious pensioners.
It's no good being a hero to one group and irrelevant to the other.
You're smart enough not to cherry pick convenient facts and convince yourself that you are right. Go and have a look beyond your peer group, at Corbyn's and Labour's overall national support figures. They are f**king dreadful. The worst that any Labour opposition has EVER had at this stage of the cycle. By a mile.
The Labour members who voted Corbyn in May well convince themselves they are right. But they aren't. They are self-indulgent and refusing to face the truth. And that is inexcusable. Because this is NOT about them. It is about the people that Labour had to look after.
-
Copps.
Labour is in opposition. They are of lesser importance to the media than the Govt. Do you expect the media to be clearing their decks to hear what Vernon Coaker or Lucy Powell had to say about Brexit? Get real! There was only one person on the Labour side who could set the tone of Labour's approach to the campaign.
Unfortunately, he DID set that tone...
-
Copps.
For Christ's sake! The Labour Party membership is 0.5% of the f**king population. His job is not to make Labour Party members feel good about themselves. It is to convince the f**king country out there.
Come on now, If you can't see the man has support then your prejudices are outweighing your judgement. You must also surely know that at this stage we've only got indicative pointers on his popularity - indicative figures, clues, trends. They are all broadly supportive. Lastly, before we even get to his first true opportunity to 'convince the country' you want to behead the man! The EU referendum wasn't a vote on Corbyn, and the 16 odd million who voted remain do not suddenly all have to retreat from political life.
-
Copps
I was you 30 years ago. I convinced myself that a dysfunctional Labour with a leader that couldn't convince the country, was right.
I was certain that we had the right arguments and that the country would see the light.
All my young mates thought the same.
We were the people who made Labour unelectable because we weren't prepared to look outside our bubble to see what the rest of the country felt.
We were the ones who gave Thatcher a clear, unobstructed decade to do her work.
You and your bubble are going to do the same thing for PM Johnson.
Think about it. Think hard about it. Go and properly read up about the early 80s. And only after THAT, decide whether you and your Twitter mates are right or not.
-
snip
Well, to condense a few things there - I generally think I am providing a more impartial view of his popularity than you are. Given also that, as you surely must admit, you didn't want him as the leader in the first place this may still be influencing your opinion. You will also notice I said 'if you want anecdotal evidence'. I thought that might give an indication of the value I put on that evidence. Take it as you want, I'm comfortable with how I interpret it.
Given that Yougov use a pretty robust and broad sampling strategy, I wonder how stuff like this (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/camerons-ratings-now-lower-corbyns/) reflects on his wider popularity and your points about attracting a wider vote?
-
Copps
I'm very much aware of that poll thanks. And the RELATIVE positions are not the issue.
Corbyn's position vis-a-vis Cameron is utterly irrelevant. Cameron isn't his opponent. What matters is Corbyn's personal position itself. And that of the Labour Party.
Can you possibly imagine a more propitious condition for an opposition? A Govt that has torn itself to pieces. A PM defeat and resigned.
Where are Labour in the polls? Where is Corbyn's personal popularity?
-
Copps: this is one of the saddest things I have ever said on here. But it has to be said. It really does not matter, in the slightest, how popular Corbyn is within the Labour Party or even with the left wing in this country generally. They won't, ever, get him elected. I wish they would. He speaks a lot of sense on some subjects. But they won't. They can't. Look up political theory - about how elections are won and lost. His entire political life puts him in a place where he can never win. So, like Billy said, he's opening the very same door for Boris Big Gob that Michael Foot and co opened for Mrs Thatcher. If he doesn't go inside the next month the Labour Party is dead. It's already lost 50 seats in Scotland that aren't coming back and will soon disdappear off the face of the Earth. It's losing another 20 seats next time around as a result of the Boundary Commission. And appealing to 100% of 20% of the electorate will simply finish the job. Corbyn is an unmitigated disaster for the Labour Party - never mind the country he could so easily have saved from itself.
You can see he's useless. What have we got? A Tory party that's split down the middle. A Tory party who's members are slagging off each other in public. A Tory party that has no sense of direction, no vision for the future (hardly, now!) and no feeling for the common man. So what, do you think, would be the position of the official opposition? Leading the cry against such a terrible government? A 10+ point lead in the polls? A plan for the future? A united party focussed on getting rid of this shower of shite in Downing street?
You'd think so wouldn't you. Only we have exactly none of that. None at all. That's the calibre of leader Jeremy Corbyn is. He's a nebbish.
BobG
-
Think about it. Think hard about it. Go and properly read up about the early 80s. And only after THAT, decide whether you and your Twitter mates are right or not.
In reply to this post.
Firstly, I'm not personally on twitter (I help out some joint accounts but that is by the by). Generally, I don't really get involved in social media because I'm an unsociable t**t. Secondly, you seem to have mis-interpreted me as some kind of young idealist! Errrr. I don't really know the best way to refute that other than to share some personal information (you'll have to trust me not out of vanity). For a time (a relatively short period admittedly) I was employed by one of the UK governments. I had a role that had a responsibility intrinsically attached to it to listen to the views of a very very broad range of people. That particular experience is undoubtedly one of the founding influences on my political views.
If what you're doing is transposing your views of the younger generation on to me then I just think you are wrong. Those inter-generational stereotypes just doesn't equate with my experiences. As I argued after the referendum, I think many younger people have a far more complete view of the situation than many older people do. I also don't buy the fact that, whatever your experiences were in the 1980s, that a 'wiser' view of politics is that it should always be sustained by a strong and benevolent leader. And moreover, that fear of the consequences should somehow dictate how we act.
I think the outcomes of this referendum have a much longer history than the 1980s and have far more fundamental consequences for our democracy/politics than a simple change in figureheads.
-
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
63% of Labour voters backed Remain. Note that is 1% behind the SNP. The claim that Corbyn didn't galvanise the Labour vote doesn't quite stack up in my view.
-
Copps
My view of left-wing politics is very simple. No theorising. I had my fill of that in my early 20s.
The job of the left wing is to blunt the worst of the excesses of horrors that would otherwise be unleashed on those unable to protect themselves.
It's not about getting some hypothetically perefect outcome. It's not about getting the precise outcome that would best match my own beliefs.
It's about getting the least bad practically possible outcome.
That's why I f**king hate the left people who casual castigate Blair and Brown. I said months ago that the lefties who nonchalantly say that Blair was nothing but a Tory are intellectually vacant.
I, personally, felt that Blair went considerably too far to the right. But f**k me, was PM Blair preferable to opposition Corbyn and PM Johnson.
That is what it comes down to. Accept compromise rather than staying pure and losing.
-
Macho
Your not the first to tell me that.
It misses the f**king obvious point. M
How many SNP supporters voted Leave because it brings independence closer? I would have done as an SNP supporter. It was a no-brainer.
For f**k's sake, put the SNP figure aside and look at what those numbers say for Labour. THIRTY-SEVEN percent of Labour supporters voted Out. When the Labour leader was, apparently, supporting In.
Think about it! Put your preferences aside and think about it!
-
Corbyn i get the impression, is liked by some, but they can't see him leading the country. The mp's jobs are to get the right man in charge to give them a better chance of being elected. Labour can't be elected with Corbyn in charge, it's only a matter of time, until he goes.
He is probably a very good mp, who has strong beliefs, and helps the area he is from, but he isn't a leader!. The labour party is in pieces, and the conservatives are also split down the middle.
I can't believe Nicky Morgan is being put forward as a potential leader, she doesn't even seem to understand the job she is doing in education, she seems very inexperienced!. The candidates listed really only leave one person, and that's Boris. There is a serious lack of quality candidates on both sides. The liberals if they hadn't gone in with the conservatives, could have been sitting in a nice position now. The worry is that ukip get in through the backdoor, that really would be a nightmare!.
-
BST,
Yep, I'm aware of that. However, as has been mentioned, the referendum wasn't on Corbyn's fitness to lead. If pretty much every fact, expert opinion and world leader pointing to it being a bad idea didn't swing it I don't see any Labour MP making a difference. At least, not when they spend more time bitching to the press than they do putting on a united front - there's a whiff of a self-fulfilling prophecy about all this. 2/3 of the members isn't outstanding but it's hardly a capitulation worthy of a coup.
Also, it might just be my tinfoil hat, and it may just be a coincidence, but all the Blairites sticking the boot into Corbyn right before Labour (except Corbyn and a couple of others of course) gets a pasting in the Chilcot report... interesting timing if nothing else.
-
I voted out, and would have voted out whoever was the leader of the labour party.
-
I too voted leave. My mind was made up years ago, maybe even decades ago, that if ever given the chance I would vote us out of this European project. The party leaders were unlikely to change my view.
The campaigns were so poor that they did not change my view.
What is disappointing is that it was for our country a massive decision and the government should have been ready for either outcome. Cameron said he would take instruction and do what the people asked, yes he gambled and failed, and he is a politician therefore a liar, but to quit when he has a job to do is feeble.
The labour shadow cabinet upheaval, and moves to replace Corbyn, are badly timed in that we have some real negotiating to do with the EU and others, and it needs to have cross party involvement and support.
So there is much to be getting on with to limit the period of financial uncertainty and yet we have to delay proper negotiations because of Westminster turmoil. The vote we had was not party politics, it was about the future of our country not the Tory or Labour Party. This me me me sort of reaction is sad and the subsequent delays in negotiating are unhelpful.
-
negotiations cannot start until clause 50 is activated.
-
I too voted leave. My mind was made up years ago, maybe even decades ago, that if ever given the chance I would vote us out of this European project. The party leaders were unlikely to change my view.
The campaigns were so poor that they did not change my view.
What is disappointing is that it was for our country a massive decision and the government should have been ready for either outcome. Cameron said he would take instruction and do what the people asked, yes he gambled and failed, and he is a politician therefore a liar, but to quit when he has a job to do is feeble.
The labour shadow cabinet upheaval, and moves to replace Corbyn, are badly timed in that we have some real negotiating to do with the EU and others, and it needs to have cross party involvement and support.
So there is much to be getting on with to limit the period of financial uncertainty and yet we have to delay proper negotiations because of Westminster turmoil. The vote we had was not party politics, it was about the future of our country not the Tory or Labour Party. This me me me sort of reaction is sad and the subsequent delays in negotiating are unhelpful.
I agree with all that, the current turmoil within both party's is not helping things at all at the moment
-
negotiations cannot start until clause 50 is activated.
They will, its already been reported on LBC they'll be starting in the next few days although until its activated the EU can't kick us off the top table so to speak I'm not holding my breath on that one :)
Also Mr Osborne prior to the referendum you stated there was no alternative plan if leave won, (which in my opinion would have been a massive dereliction of your duties) and in your speech this morning you, the Bank of England and all your cronies have been working on an alternative plan for months.
Sums it all up really Lies upon lies upon lies from all sides, how come I'm not surprised
-
Dagenham.
Osborne did not say that there was no alternative plan.
He said that there were contingency plans for dealing with the immediate turmoil following an Out vote, but that there were no long term plans.
He said, "The thing we’re planning for is the contingency plans for the financial stability consequences in the immediate aftermath.
"There would be an immediate question mark over the state of our public finances.
"It would start to come this Friday - that’s when the uncertainty would start.”
That has already come to pass.
Now, we've just had weeks and weeks of a campaign in which, every time there were predictions of the medium-to-long term effects of Brexit, the Leavers screamed, "No, no, no! You can't predict this. We don't believe you."
You can't have it both ways Dagenham. Either you CAN predict the effects, in which case the overwhelming consensus is that we're going to have a really, REALLY bad medium term future economic performance, and the Leavers have blathered you. Or you can't predict. In which case you can't criticise the Govt for having no long term plan.
Which one is it?
-
Osborne stated there was no alternative plan prior to the referendum in an interview on LBC which the presenter told him he considered it a dereliction of duty as well.
another little snippet that came along was 88% of economists said the UK would be worse off! that was actually 88% of the 14% of economists who bothered to respond.
Tbh Billy I haven't got time to trawl through and find the relevant soundbites as I'm just about to go on my jollys for a couple of weeks so lets agree to disagree
-
No emergency budget,so remain campaign telling the same untruths as the leave,what a surprise
-
You clearly don't understand the numbers.
Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.
-
Regardless of that, the cat is out of the bag anyway. There isn't going to be a reduction in immigration. It's not going to happen.
The dupe in Doncaster have served their purpose which is to get Boris to the step on No10. Now they can f**k off and deal with what's coming.
You just do t get it do you? You think you've exercised democratic power. It's pitifully naive.
-
Regardless of that, the cat is out of the bag anyway. There isn't going to be a reduction in immigration. It's not going to happen.
The dupe in Doncaster have served their purpose which is to get Boris to the step on No10. Now they can f**k off and deal with what's coming.
You just do t get it do you? You think you've exercised democratic power. It's pitifully naive.
I'm not sure anyone can say that. None of us know.
-
BFYP
Haven't you been listening to the news this weekend? Haven't you heard what our next PM and his de facto spokesman said?
-
You clearly don't understand the numbers.
Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.
I could have put 'Outraged of Altrincham' or 'Outraged of Reading' just as much.
The point remains.
You seem to think towns like Doncaster, Worksop and Mansfield have a high volume/percentage of immigration but they simply don't. Boston's is higher but still relatively lower compared to larger towns/cities.
Whatever point you are trying to make after that is simply wrong.
-
An open question - how many of those 33 million voters now feel mislead (whether in or out) due to the political rhetoric (ie lies and spin) that we always get?
We have a general election every 5 years where we can vote to put right what we were lied about at the previosu election - how can we put right the lies from this referendum?
And how many would vote the same again - in Boston, Worksop, Doncaster, Mansfield or any other town with large volumes of immigrants, for example.
But people voting the same way again doesn't make as good a story as 'Outraged of Bristol' who is scared they might now need a VISA to visit France in five years time.
I am not saying the result would be different, in fact "leave" may get a bigger majority under a different campaign or if 100% voting was called for. And that would be fair enough as a result of a clean campaign.
That's not my point at all... despite knowing what "politics" is all about, do you not agree that a clean campaign would have seen a fairer result, whichever way it went???
Simple question...
-
You clearly don't understand the numbers.
Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.
I could have put 'Outraged of Altrincham' or 'Outraged of Reading' just as much.
The point remains.
You seem to think towns like Doncaster, Worksop and Mansfield have a high volume/percentage of immigration but they simply don't. Boston's is higher but still relatively lower compared to larger towns/cities.
Whatever point you are trying to make after that is simply wrong.
So why did all these towns vote 'leave' in their droves?
I don't know, why did all these towns vote 'leave' in their droves? No guesses, please.
-
You clearly don't understand the numbers.
Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.
I could have put 'Outraged of Altrincham' or 'Outraged of Reading' just as much.
The point remains.
You seem to think towns like Doncaster, Worksop and Mansfield have a high volume/percentage of immigration but they simply don't. Boston's is higher but still relatively lower compared to larger towns/cities.
Whatever point you are trying to make after that is simply wrong.
So why did all these towns vote 'leave' in their droves?
I mean, exactly. Well done. That's exactly the type of question you should be asking. Because its kind of strange isn't it that immigration is raised as an issue when in many high leave vote areas it isn't even that prominent. Kind of points to other deep-seated issues that led to this situation. Hopefully tells you (us) something also about how the immigration issue was 'used'.
-
What is a clean campaign though?
You're always going to get underhand tactics (from both sides who want to win), you're always going to get exaggeration, elaboration in any sort of contest - political or otherwise.
People knew what they had to do to get their voice heard and if 28% of the country opted not to vote, that's down to them.
The 72% which did vote produced a result - which is to leave the European Union.
Why can't you answer a simple question, hypothetical as it may be???
-
What is a clean campaign though?
You're always going to get underhand tactics (from both sides who want to win), you're always going to get exaggeration, elaboration in any sort of contest - political or otherwise.
People knew what they had to do to get their voice heard and if 28% of the country opted not to vote, that's down to them.
The 72% which did vote produced a result - which is to leave the European Union.
Why can't you answer a simple question, hypothetical as it may be???
Because he can't and he knows he can't.
-
Yes Glyn, he can. For some reason though he chooses not to.
-
For about the 67th time (yes i can exaggerate too) I am asking you a hypothetical yet simple question.
yes, or no?
And yes of course I can see what you say, you cannot seem to grasp that because the vote MAY have been different with a "clean" campaign, added to the fact that there is no way to correct this (unlike a general election), that on this occasion this should be cleaner - WHATEVER the result may then be?
Giving me an answer doesn't mean your're changing an opinion, does it??
-
For about the 67th time (yes i can exaggerate too) I am asking you a hypothetical yet simple question.
yes, or no?
And yes of course I can see what you say, you cannot seem to grasp that because the vote MAY have been different with a "clean" campaign, added to the fact that there is no way to correct this (unlike a general election), that on this occasion this should be cleaner - WHATEVER the result may then be?
Giving me an answer doesn't mean your're changing an opinion, does it??
The end result also MAY NOT have been different with a 'cleaner' campaign.
Asking for a campaign with complete honesty, integrity and smelling of roses, isn't going to happen though.
Which bit of
"I am not saying the result would be different, in fact "leave" may get a bigger majority under a different campaign or if 100% voting was called for. And that would be fair enough as a result of a clean campaign."
did you not understand?
Regardless of whether we would get a clean campaign or not, do you, the poster posting as "Rigoglioso", agree that a cleaner campaign would in theory have given a fairer result, regardless of the winner?
-
For about the 67th time (yes i can exaggerate too) I am asking you a hypothetical yet simple question.
yes, or no?
And yes of course I can see what you say, you cannot seem to grasp that because the vote MAY have been different with a "clean" campaign, added to the fact that there is no way to correct this (unlike a general election), that on this occasion this should be cleaner - WHATEVER the result may then be?
Giving me an answer doesn't mean your're changing an opinion, does it??
The end result also MAY NOT have been different with a 'cleaner' campaign.
Asking for a campaign with complete honesty, integrity and smelling of roses, isn't going to happen though.
Which bit of
"I am not saying the result would be different, in fact "leave" may get a bigger majority under a different campaign or if 100% voting was called for. And that would be fair enough as a result of a clean campaign."
did you not understand?
Regardless of whether we would get a clean campaign or not, do you, the poster posting as "Rigoglioso", agree that a cleaner campaign would in theory have given a fairer result, regardless of the winner?
The best way to get a result would be to pick a day for a referendum, say at four months notice, and let the voters decide, based on their own preferences, the result.
I'm sure that's what happened last week.
So, you are STILL refusing to answer a question?? Is it that difficult? You don't need to step down from your beliefs or opinions to answer the question, just say yes or no??
Oh and you missed the bit about "based on their own preferences yet influenced by lies and mislead by spin" in your non-answer above??
-
You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical questions - you're never going to get a squeaky clean campaign, which is what you're wanting.
Hypothetically, if Germany had won the Second World War, would we be having a vote on the European Union?
Hypothetically, if Angela Merkel hadn't opened up her country to mass immigration last year, would fears have been different?
Hypothetically, if Boris had supported Cameron, would the vote have been different?
Hypothetically, if hypothetical theories didn't exist, would we hypothetically be in a different hypothetical state right now?
Thud!!!!!!!!
In my last post with re-quotes included I asked you the same question 3 times, I wasn't suggesting any other hypothetical questions - just the one!!, just asking YOU a straightforward question.
Yet you AGAIN refused to answer, and have gone off at another tangent.
So I say again:
Regardless of whether we would get a clean campaign or not, do you, the poster posting as "Rigoglioso", agree that a cleaner campaign would in theory have given a fairer result, regardless of the winner?
-
I take it you won't be supporting a 2nd referendum in Scotland?
-
A fair process was to hold a referendum and let the people decide. I'm sure that produced a majority and I'm sure the vote was only last week.
What does it take to get you to answer a simple question???
You are not stupid, not unintelligent, and I do understand what you have said but yet again you haven't answered! It doesn't matter whether we disagree, whether I "like" your answer or not - but you don't answer...
:facepalm:
-
A fair process was to hold a referendum and let the people decide. I'm sure that produced a majority and I'm sure the vote was only last week.
You've got more chance of striking matches on wet tripe than getting Rigo to answer a simple question.
-
The point is, everyone's vote counts, everyone's..
That's quite correct. Those that voted Remain count on the Remain side, those who voted Leave count on the Leave side. Those who chose not to vote clearly don't care whether we're in or we're out and are happy whichever way the result went so in effect they 'count' with the side that won. Though not shown in the official figures the effect is the same.
Whilst I'm not happy with the result I have to accept it, that's our current democratic process.
A better process would be to operate voting in a similar way Australia does - it's compulsory to vote, (though there arguments which can be put forward that this in itself is undemocratic). Failure to vote attracts a fine, and while this is an almost negligible amount it does lead to a significantly higher turnout than almost anywhere in the world. Even then, they don't get a 100% turnout. Not perfect, but much better than our current system.
Of course you might have got a bigger vote to Leave if you'd got more voters out.
Indeed. Equally, Remain might have got a bigger vote if more voters turned out, no one knows. But either way, it would have been far more representative than the current one.
-
Sadly, Rigo is turning into a replica of you know who. It's a crying shame too.
BobG
-
Copps
I'm very much aware of that poll thanks. And the RELATIVE positions are not the issue.
Corbyn's position vis-a-vis Cameron is utterly irrelevant. Cameron isn't his opponent. What matters is Corbyn's personal position itself. And that of the Labour Party.
Can you possibly imagine a more propitious condition for an opposition? A Govt that has torn itself to pieces. A PM defeat and resigned.
Where are Labour in the polls? Where is Corbyn's personal popularity?
Yes, well.
As I was saying...
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/independent-sunday-mirror-political-poll-2/
-
Though this suggests the current alternatives to Corbyn wouldn't improve matters much
https://mobile.twitter.com/martinboon
Translation - it's a huge mess for Labour however you look at it.
-
That's taking the current alternatives.
Smith entering the vote has turned Eagle from a direct challenger into a stalking horse. If they - combined - can obtain a big enough share of the vote to make Corbyn resign but neither win outright themselves, then I think other big guns can throw their hats into the ring in the way that Major and Hurd could only stand against Heseltine once Thatcher had resigned - in the same way that a Deputy Leader like Tom Watson can't really stand against an incumbent Leader. And Watson becoming Leader is probably the best chance of uniting the party at the moment.
-
Polls?
I put as much worth into them as the air that exits my arse. Frequently wrong, wildly dependent on methodology and politically motivated. And that's the pollsters themselves speaking, not me. Go and search out their blogs - they all have them. It would take me 5 minutes to go and find a poll that is more favourable to Corbyn but in all honesty, a poll which amounts to an opinion on May's hair means diddly squat to me, because that is what it amounts to.
Do you want to know which studies I've been reading lately - This is rigorous research that should mean something to you (http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx).
Remember Eagle's window (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppnKHmuVA1s&feature=youtu.be)
See Billy, I don't get you really. You've told us you've campaigned for labour in the past and you seem like you passionately support the party. However, instead of fighting for that party based on how the country should be ran, you're more interested in which personality should run it. I think you've got your priorities in the wrong order. No doubt you will say 'we can't achieve anything without being in power' but that really isn't true in the fullest sense of how power works in this country. Even one of your recent posts was about changing the voting system to something more representative of the spectrum of political opinions but in the same breath you want to submit, to consent, to securing labour in power in the two-party system. That's odd to me because I think you ignore yourself.
If you want centrist labour politics then tell us what that is about, not who it is about.
I'm supporting Corbyn because of what he is about, not who is. That's ultimately how I believe it should work, I choose politicians who best represent my views.
-
Any leader of any party must be able to bring the whole of the party with them, as a united party. That's irregardless of their personal views and those of the party he's leading - it has to be a concensus, a broad platform that everybody can support to some degree.
It was always going to be the hardest part of his job to bring the PLP behind him, but that was his task - to get them to support him as a leader.
He has had ten months to do something about it, and he's failed.
He's a failure as a leader, irrespective of whether you agree with his political stance or not. Waving your mandate from the membership in the air means nothing if you can't get an important part of the party to back you. When droves of his MPs either don't want to work with him, or (according to some of them) find him impossible to work with anyway, it underlines how much of a failure as a leader he is as he has not brought them into the fold but it appears driven a bigger wedge between himself and them.
-
Given that some MPs can and do work with him would render the word 'impossible' a tad hyperbolic would it not? I also think you're kidding yourself if you dismiss the possibility that these MPs (whether they are a majority or not) never wanted to really work with HIM in the first place. I don't really know either way but to me both are plausible explanations.
In the end you are kidding yourself if you think the mandate from the party means nothing. Because he will inevitably win another one and we'll see what that means.
-
Copps
Hang on spadger.
That post of mine was a response to you posting a poll saying Corbyn was more popular than Cameron.
Now you're saying you don't go a bundle in polls.
Is this the New Politics then, eh? Big up stuff that supports what you think and go "La, la! I can't hear you!" when contrary stuff comes along?
-
Copps
Hang on spadger.
That post of mine was a response to you posting a poll saying Corbyn was more popular than Cameron.
Now you're saying you don't go a bundle in polls.
Is this the New Politics then, eh? Big up stuff that supports what you think and go "La, la! I can't hear you!" when contrary stuff comes along?
Do read what I wrote. I didn't say I ignore contrary polls, I said I put very little worth on polls full stop. Both the ones I posted and the ones you posted. The context in which I posted that link was you claiming Corbyn has no popular support. Which is ludicrous.
Come on Billy, lets have something a bit meatier than your prejudices against Corbyn or we'll end up no where. You're very quick to point out where are others are wrong (it's your specialist subject) but you offer very little in return.
-
Given that some MPs can and do work with him would render the word 'impossible' a tad hyperbolic would it not? I also think you're kidding yourself if you dismiss the possibility that these MPs (whether they are a majority or not) never wanted to really work with HIM in the first place. I don't really know either way but to me both are plausible explanations.
In the end you are kidding yourself if you think the mandate from the party means nothing. Because he will inevitably win another one and we'll see what that means.
Go on then, tell me what he's done to encourage the PLP to back him. If he can't lead them, he's failed as a leader.
As to seeing what that means, I've said to before. I think it'll mean a split, with the centrists becoming the new Official Opposition and Corbyn's rump becoming irrelevant.
-
Copps
Where to begin.
The media don't like Corbyn? Welcome to the real world mate. We had this throughout the 80s and in fact ever since the Zinoviev Letter. We KNOW about this. Complaining about it doesn't make it any better. You have to make your strategy in light of that fact.
2) Disinformation. You're doing the La-La thing again. Idiots on both bloody sides are doing it and it makes my f**king blood boil. Yesterday, there was a Twittef storm about Owen Smith having stated in Radio4 that he was standing because he blamed Corbyn for Nice. Declamatory tweet after "how could you stoop so low? tweet.
Except of course he said nothing of the sort.
Complaining about misinformation from one side and ignoring the other side doesn't make one side right. There are idiots and devious t**ts on both sides.
And yes, I am one of those unprincipled judases who prefers a compromised Labour in power to a principled one out of power. Your reading of my take on PR is not appropriate by the way. That is a movement that could easily get an absolute majority of voter support across the spectrum from SWP to UKIP. That is totally different from trying to convince yourself that a relatively narrow left wing stance can convince enough people to win power.
I do, honestly, admire your take of supporting what you truly believe in. But in the shake up, you have to compromise if you actually want power. Simple as that.
-
Copps
This is impossible.
You post a link to ONE poll. I post a link to another one. Then you say you don't listen to individual polls.
Not sure where we go with this from here.
-
We're getting somewhere here.
Let me get it straight. You're openly admitting that you're not even waiting for a labour faction to present an alternative vision for the party, for the country, and for the left - but choosing instead to place preemptive support in that entity when it comes about whatever vision it presents to you?
Angela Eagle must come as a bitter bitter blow to you then Stubsy. That's about the kindest thing I can say. I don't actually think you're a unprincipled Judas, more of a reactionary.
On the first point you are misunderstanding me once again. I'm not claiming (its unfair that) Corbyn is misrepresented more than any other politician (although I suspect he is probably is). I'm saying isn't it refreshing that Corbyn has exposed the system for what it really is and is at least trying to present an alternative to the machine that Campbell and co rode and sustained. It is to me at least.
-
Some interesting stats BST. There's a story behind every number, though. I'd wager May's high approval rating has a lot to do with her not actually having the chance to f**k anything up yet combined with the Tories putting on a united front and putting her over as a strong, decisive leader who wouldn't look out of place in the bible. She's been sold to us very, very well.
Labour have not once done that with Corbyn. They could have - when he was elected in a historic landslide despite only just scraping on the ballot, they could have worked with that and sold themselves as a galvanised, hip party that still had old school Labour values so as not to alienate older voters. They could have woven a grassroots, Rocky style narrative. Maybe if they had, Corbyn wouldn't be perceived as he is. But no, instead of running with that and closing ranks like the Tories have, they immediately threw their hands up and decided it would never work because apparently they'd get elected again in 2020 if only they were a bit more like the Tories. So we've had Labour MPs briefing against him in the press every week instead of singing his praises and marketing him as the demi-God from Islington who'll save the country. Too late for that now of course.
-
I don't particularly have a dog in this fight, but having listened to both recently I struggle to see either Owen Smith or Angela Eagle as an upgrade on Corbyn.
-
Well Eagle has just dropped out. I don't like personality politics but that is definitely the correct decision. Genuinely interested what alternative vision Owen Jones now puts forward.
-
Well, I've just paid my 25 quid. I shall be voting - though I really don't think it's going to make a blind bit of difference. Politics has to be about DOING something. Doing something, or at least having a prospect of doing something. It's not about posturing and having no propsect whatever of achieving anything, ever. It's not about sitting there all righteous saying 'We've been let down by the oiks out there' - which is what happened in the 1980's and will happen again soon after the next general election.
Corbyn said today that he wouldn't press the nuclear trigger. Bravo. But tactically inept even if you agree with him. Now everybody on the planet knows they can safely disregard him, and us, if push ever comes to shove. f**king idiot. Just wait til the press start in on him. You'll be able to tell when the next election is coming before anybody makes any announcements. Just watch the press. Once the attacks start in earnest, then you'll know.
BobG
-
Bob. Nail. Head.
The biggest issue with the Corbyn/McDonnell axis is the baggage that the right wing press will use against them if Labour looks remotely close to power.
Corbyn has on his record calling Hamas and Hezbollah "friends".
McDonnell said publicly that he wished he could go back to the 80s to assassinate Thatcher. When Labour colleagues on the GLC refused to attend a meeting with Sinn Fein shortly after the Brighton bombing he called them "gutless wimps" and said "kneecapping might change their mind."
Their long-time political ally and fellow gobshite Livingston said that the 7/7 bombers "gave their lives".
And YES there is context. And YES, (I hope) some of those were jokes. But it won't matter. If Labour are close to power, it'll be "Do you want the terrorists' friend in power". If Labour are not close to power, it'll be "How can this party ever be electable again when it is led by terrorists' friends."
THAT is what the leadership issue is all about. It's about appearing like someone who could be trusted to run the country. Not someone who either does a shit line in really tasteless jokes, or occasionally lets their guard down to reveal beliefs that 90% of the country would revile.
There's an issue that I keep saying, and Copps seems to think I'm "reactionary" for it (we're going through the whole gamut of 1980's abuse here - I'm enjoying the reminiscing. Wonder when "ideologically unsound" will come up. That was always a good discussion closer...)
The issue is that it doesn't matter how many left-of-Labour people you convince to follow you, if you are hated by all those to the right of Labour. And there is no way on earth that those two, with that baggage will ever convince the electorate that the country would be safe in their hands. Whether that is a fair judgement or not is irrelevant. It's a fact and it is so because they have given their opponents too many hostages to fortune to be used whenever is suitable.
-
And despite laying it out in irrefutably clear factual logic BST, they will still come back on here refusing to acknowledge the truth of what you've said.
-
I'm stunned by just how dim these people must be. I'm an idealist. I'm a Utopian. I'd love to live a life where everybody has equality of opportunity, where there's no greed, no corruption, no tax havens. But it's pie in the sky. Even if there were a total and utter revolution and the whole world began again, we would quickly develop widespread examples of those self same things. The haves and the have nots are here to stay whatever anybody says about it. It's human nature. The job of the Labour Party is to do its level best to minimise the differences between those two sides of the human coin. Apart from the odd mad interlude like this now, it's done a pretty fair job. What's fascinating though is just how utterly ineffective the Labour Party has been whenever it's lurched to the left. These fools don't even know their own history. They obviously don't know how the Labour Party actually gets to make things happen. That alone makes Corbyn unfit to be leader never mind everything else.
Here's a question: every single Labour government there's ever been - were they left of centre, centre or right of centre? And if there are left of centre ones in your list how did they fare?
Any Leader of the Labour Party who can't or won't see the implications of these two key components of Party history is not competant to be its leader. And even worse, any leader who can't or won't see that logic is condemning the entire sodding country to a generation of Tory rule. As a politician the bloke is a total and utter joke. He is as full of dogma as ever was Thatcher, Tebbitt and the rest of that gang. And Ed Milliband gets a special mention too as the lunatic who created the circumstance under which juveniles like Corbyn could be elected.
Bob
PS What is it with these left wing leaders? Is there some self righteous disease peculiar to them or soemthing? Just cast your mind back to Arthur Scargill. What idiot would ever think of announcing you're going to have a strike months in advance of actually doing so, then failing to hold a vote of your members and so splitting the organisation in two and then, to top it all, starting the bloody strike at the beginning of SUMMER!
I remember going past Didcot power station on the train on a daily basis, in the months before the strike began, watching the stockpiles of coal growing and growing and growing.... I sometimes wonder if these completely ineffective charlatans of the left are blinded by their own self righteousness?
-
Didn't Corbyn suspend Livingstone and order an investigation?
Take it the links I posted weren't read.
-
It must be a great luxury and peculiar point in life to have concluded that those who don't share your opinion are dim even before you have made your point. I hope I never reach that point because I have genuine wonder about the world and the people in it.
Kind of begs the question - what is really the point of taking this 'discussion' forward?
-
No. Post hoc ergo propter hoc mate.
BobG
-
Sorry Bob, I only went to a state comprehensive and did 1 year of Spanish and 3 years of French. Generally I communicate in English when I know both individuals speak that language.
See, I think the difference between me and thee is I see that £25 you've spent as you exercising one of your democratic rights. That is great, should be encouraged, and I would be open to your views if they didn't so frequently start with an insult. However, deep down, in your heart of hearts, and in your's and BST's closed views on the subject, you must know that those spending £25 to vote in the opposite direction have not quite been treated in the same manner.
As you were saying, inequality will always exist and is it any wonder why.
-
Well Eagle has just dropped out. I don't like personality politics but that is definitely the correct decision. Genuinely interested what alternative vision Owen Jones now puts forward.
Owen Jones? Bit of a Freudian slip there!
-
I agree with you, Copps. I think Corbyn has something quite intangible; an honesty that has been bereft of mainstream politicians for some time. What he is inspiring isn't "politics" as we've come to know it over the past 20 or 30 years. Its a movement for change. It is bringing together those sick of the phoney war that happens at PMQs, sick of the defenceless being victimised by the state, sick of an austerity that is a political choice rather than a financial necessity. This is why the Labour Party has seen hundreds of thousands of members join in the past 6 months. People are seeing sense in what Corbyn says (when the right wing media allow it to be heard). The establishment is scared. The PLP fears its gravy train will be derailed. Corbyn might not be the man to take this to its logical conclusion but he certainly is the man who is getting the ball rolling.
-
There's a bigger problem for Labour anyway. Now that UKIP have got the Brexit vote and Farage has stepped down they are choosing a new leader. It is probably going to be Paul Nuttall or Steven Woolfe, both of whom are northerners and will target white working class voters in Labour's old heartlands. Labour simply HAS to offer something better to those voters than it is currently doing.
-
Well Eagle has just dropped out. I don't like personality politics but that is definitely the correct decision. Genuinely interested what alternative vision Owen Jones now puts forward.
Owen Jones? Bit of a Freudian slip there!
haha, good spot! For the record, I do occasionally read what Owen Jones has to say but I also find him a bit irritable at times.
-
Corbyn IS honest Rob. Very honest. And given the human condition it's a major, major weakness mp m,ayyer now much we all want the world to be like that. The world isn't. He doesn't fit.
And Copps: I appreciate you only had a lower class sort of education, but surely even you can work out how to use google? If you don't understand the sort of stuff that educated people do, it's easy enough to work it out.
See? Two can play at the insulting game.
Cheers
Bob
-
There is a very basic confusion in play here, fellas.
The numbers game has changed, and so must the calculations about the possible and the probable. The past is no longer an anchor point.
Is the goal for Labour to become the next government outright, or is it to prevent another Tory success?
In an ideal world, Labour would be looking to secure an overall UK majority, and return to power as the largest party in 2020.
To do so they need to revive traditional support in Scotland, arrest the progress of UKIP in the north, and capture Con/Lab marginals in the SE. A revival of Lib Dem support in the SW is essential where they are the second party.
The figures suggest that this is beyond reach, unless the Tories implode (over Brexit terms?) before 2020. Under the likely boundary changes, the Conservatives will be able to retain their majority with around 36 per cent of the vote. Labour Party documents say that they would need a 9.5% UK swing (including in Scotland) for a UK majority.
Labour will need to gain 53 seats to be able to govern in some sort of partnership with the SNP (and this would exclude any seats won from the Nationalists themselves).
A much more accessible target is to defeat any Tory majority, working in strategic partnership with SNP, Plaid and Lib Dems where appropriate. This means agreeing certain policy compromises in advance, and not standing candidates against the most likely opponent to the Tories.
Assuming Scotland to be out of range for a Labour recovery, if the Lib Dems and Labour were each able to make gains in England, in seats where they face the Conservatives, and achieved a swing of around 6.5 points this would be sufficient for them to achieve a combined majority in England (Labour would gain around 55 seats; and the Lib Dems 16).
This suggests that it is strongly in Labour’s interests for the Lib Dems to stage a recovery in those parts of England where Labour is not competitive, such as the South West.
It also means that the political landscape under the current system involves the probability of Conservative government for the future, until the opposition parties can agree to work together to secure electoral change.
-
Labour haven't the time to regain the votes lost, in the time that is left. Without a real leader suddenly emerging from the mist, they face years of being out of government, and having ukip and even the liberals chipping away more of they're support.
The tories are at they're weakest for some time, but it's like a football side getting a bye into the next round, they lead without any opposition of note, very sad.
-
Albie
I see your thinking, but I don't see any evidence that Labour is pursuing such a strategy.
They might be giving the Lib Dems a bit of a leg up, but only by haemorrhaging support to them from their own centre-right.
-
TRB
That is my point, Labour is still addressing the old political dynamic of a binary choice. It is simply no longer relevant.
Whatever policy set Labour adopts, there is a potential loss of support at the margin, either to Lib Dem on the centre right, or to UKIP in the north. Many UKIP supporters are actually Labour based, excluding the misleading immigration question.
The greater gains for Labour may be in drawing back into the political debate those who have chosen not to vote, an increasing proportion of the eligible electorate.
Discussions about the leadership of Labour are a distraction IMO. The important point is the definition of an attainable goal and the measures taken to achieve it. People are deliberately avoiding talking about the elephant in the room.
-
Corbyn IS honest Rob. Very honest. And given the human condition it's a major, major weakness mp m,ayyer now much we all want the world to be like that. The world isn't. He doesn't fit.
And Copps: I appreciate you only had a lower class sort of education, but surely even you can work out how to use google? If you don't understand the sort of stuff that educated people do, it's easy enough to work it out.
See? Two can play at the insulting game.
Cheers
Bob
You are aware that it's attitudes like that displayed by yourselves and the contemptible behaviour of the bulk of the PLP that has created this situation in the first place. They say that you're more left wing in your teenage years yet I've never felt further left than I do now, nor have I held more anger for the majority of our Labour MPs. I normally wouldn't have paid the 'let's exclude the poor from voting and ensure they stay in their place' tax on principle but it feels bloody brilliant to know I've nullified yours.
-
Labour haven't the time to regain the votes lost, in the time that is left.
What, in four years? :laugh:
-
Wesley mate.
I once knew someone, lets call him "W", who idolised the person in charge of his organisation.
Now, as it happens, a lot of people who had been around the block a few more times than W were wondering whether the bloke in charge was all he was cracked up to be. He did a great job of thumping the tub and getting some people to view him as a God. But there were concerns when you looked beyond the hero-worship and into the detail.
But W didn't worry too much about that. He knew his man was the real deal and he wasn't listening to any counter arguments. In fact,he was certain that people who disagreed with him had hidden agendas. He railed against them in a regular basis. He didn't bother to stop and listen to their reasoning. Why would you listen to a Judas?
I wonder how THAT story ended?
And I'm thinking the old quote is wrong. Second time round is FAR more serious. History is repeating itself, first as farce and then as tragedy.
-
The problem with that is that they absolutely do have hidden agendas. You can smell the desperation of the PLP as they desperately try and cling onto their jobs. Angela being told to step aside so there's a sole candidate and yet because of the surge for Corbyn for the last leadership, as long as they stump up their 'common man revulsion' tax he should still wipe the floor.
The majority of councils back Corbyn, including all three Doncaster wards, the Unions back Corbyn, the membership back Corbyn.
The people commenting against Corbyn on here has probably cemented by views on why it's the right thing not the opposite. Though I note it's liked by the biggest champagne socialist on here though.
-
I agree with you, Copps. I think Corbyn has something quite intangible; an honesty that has been bereft of mainstream politicians for some time. What he is inspiring isn't "politics" as we've come to know it over the past 20 or 30 years. Its a movement for change. It is bringing together those sick of the phoney war that happens at PMQs, sick of the defenceless being victimised by the state, sick of an austerity that is a political choice rather than a financial necessity. This is why the Labour Party has seen hundreds of thousands of members join in the past 6 months. People are seeing sense in what Corbyn says (when the right wing media allow it to be heard). The establishment is scared. The PLP fears its gravy train will be derailed. Corbyn might not be the man to take this to its logical conclusion but he certainly is the man who is getting the ball rolling.
BobG thinks you're dim.
-
It is bringing together those sick of the phoney war that happens at PMQs,
Further example of that today. Corbyn asked questions about Orgreave, child poverty and the Tories economic plan. He got roundly ignored on some questions and got ridiculed back on others. The press who follow this, both mainstream and on twitter, have declared May a round success without her even offering anything remotely of substance. I think a growing number now see through this.
-
And Here's the elephant in the room raising its head again (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/stop-thinking-owen-smith-will-make-labour-party-electable)
The right launch an electability crusade and then refuse to put forward their most talented candidates. But the greatest irony is a much bigger one - bereft of ideas, Labour’s centrists just aren’t electable at all.
I haven't received a suitable answer to this yet, I raised it a few weeks ago.
-
You clearly don't understand the numbers.
Places like Bristol have a much larger percentage of foreign born nationals than places like Doncaster. In fact, Doncaster has a much lower percentage of foreign born nationals compared to the national average. The pattern will be broadly similar for all cases; Larger cities have much higher percentage of foreign born nationals in comparison to smaller towns.
I could have put 'Outraged of Altrincham' or 'Outraged of Reading' just as much.
The point remains.
Would it be impolite to ask you not to send anymore unsolicited PMS?
I really have no f**king interest in that.
-
Seems I've got a few minutes I'll point out the ironies of the two things I posted above.
If a Corbyn supporter abuses someone within labour movement (half of which are fantasies concocted and exaggerated by the media) they are labelled a violent, loony-left, Johnny come lately, sixth-form politics, cosmopolitan, university town, prick. If the prime minister of the country does the same they are labelled a hero and a great leader.
The irony of the second point is that those who oppose Corbyn oppose him on the basis he is un-electable when the forces they 'support' in opposition are even more unelectable! And that leaves anti-Corbyn protesters as exactly that, anti-Corbyn. The grand intellectual bearers of history want to let us know that Corbyn is doomed for failure and in his place create an even bigger failure to prove they were right.
-
unsolicited PMS?
My lass gets that every month.
-
unsolicited PMS?
My lass gets that every month.
Thanks for the tips on trolling!
I've taken them on board.
-
unsolicited PMS?
My lass gets that every month.
Thanks for the tips on trolling!
I've taken them on board.
Don't be modest, you are the expert after all.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't get these PMs off Rigo?
-
Obviously don't bring enough to the table Copps lad.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't get these PMs off Rigo?
You're missing NOWT.
-
Wes.
Got it. So, W was a gullible dick who was played for a fool and called it wrong in that story, whilst the boring grizzled old heads called it right. But you have no lessons to learn this time round.
Is that about right.
Oh aye, and, Colombo style (ask somebody old to explain the reference); just one more thing.
You are accusing the PLP members of "desperately trying to cling onto their jobs". Forgive me if I don't understand the New Politics, but in the old version, MPs "clung onto their jobs" by getting re-elected, ideally in sufficient numbers to form a Govt.
So you're accusing them, nay, SNEERING at them, for acting in a way which makes it more likely that they'll be re-elected.
What's your ideal Labour Party? One in which MPs DON'T get re-elected? Or if I've ready you wrong, what the f**k are you on about?
-
I agree with you, Copps. I think Corbyn has something quite intangible; an honesty that has been bereft of mainstream politicians for some time. What he is inspiring isn't "politics" as we've come to know it over the past 20 or 30 years. Its a movement for change. It is bringing together those sick of the phoney war that happens at PMQs, sick of the defenceless being victimised by the state, sick of an austerity that is a political choice rather than a financial necessity. This is why the Labour Party has seen hundreds of thousands of members join in the past 6 months. People are seeing sense in what Corbyn says (when the right wing media allow it to be heard). The establishment is scared. The PLP fears its gravy train will be derailed. Corbyn might not be the man to take this to its logical conclusion but he certainly is the man who is getting the ball rolling.
BobG thinks you're dim.
He may have a point.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't get these PMs off Rigo?
Yes
-
You can get away with it when you're so handsome though.
-
I don't get them. Are they dirty jokes?
-
I wonder when these numbers stop becoming insignificant in the eyes of some? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36851524)
-
I don't get them. Are they dirty jokes?
No mush, just a joke.
-
Well, the membership is now up to, what? About 1% of the electorate?
Maybe these are the people that are being convinced by Corbyn's showing at PMQ? You did say that he's converting loads of people with his approach to leadership.
-
Labour haven't the time to regain the votes lost, in the time that is left.
What, in four years? :laugh:
Not long enough, they would need somebody who unites all the factions now. The contenders, none of them can do that, i predict a few leaders coming and going for labour in that time. They will try different one's hoping to find the solution, which i don't think they will, unfortunately!.
-
Well, the membership is now up to, what? About 1% of the electorate?
Maybe these are the people that are being convinced by Corbyn's showing at PMQ? You did say that he's converting loads of people with his approach to leadership.
What relevance does % of electorate have? Did the Tories not win only 37% of the electoral vote and take power in this country?
You have to consider these things relative to past membership numbers. They are currently at record highs for the labour party and I read someone report it is now the biggest left-wing social democratic party by membership in Western Europe. Not bad for a party that it is on its knees according to some.
I don't get why it is a bad thing. It means more people politically engaged, more people campaigning for the party, more people sharing the party on social media, it means higher attendances at local meetings, it means more money for the party.
-
Wes.
Got it. So, W was a gullible dick who was played for a fool and called it wrong in that story, whilst the boring grizzled old heads called it right. But you have no lessons to learn this time round.
Is that about right.
Oh aye, and, Colombo style (ask somebody old to explain the reference); just one more thing.
You are accusing the PLP members of "desperately trying to cling onto their jobs". Forgive me if I don't understand the New Politics, but in the old version, MPs "clung onto their jobs" by getting re-elected, ideally in sufficient numbers to form a Govt.
So you're accusing them, nay, SNEERING at them, for acting in a way which makes it more likely that they'll be re-elected.
What's your ideal Labour Party? One in which MPs DON'T get re-elected? Or if I've ready you wrong, what the f**k are you on about?
Forgive me if I'm wrong here BST, but it reads to me that you are implying that YOUR ideal Labour Party would be one where the Labour Party seeks power and electoral success regardless of whether it sticks by its traditional and socialist roots or abandons them in the name of Power.
I'd like to think the Lib Dems are absolute proof that gaining power by trading away the values and roots of your party has devastating consequences.
-
I'm a retired professional with a degree so don't think I'm particularly dim.
I'm with Copps all the way and have paid my £25 specifically to vote for Corbyn.
What BST and Bob G etc seem to be missing is that the Tories have the centre of politics sewn up. That was made obvious at the last election.
Labour will never gain power again as a centrist party so a move to the left with policies that attract people, offered by an honorable man with impeccable credentials is the best solution. Shame the PLP jobsworths can't see that.
Corbyn has motivated hundreds of thousands of mainly young people to become political and will continue to do so given the chance. It's a gradual growing force that won't go away unless he's voted out (unlikely) but if he is Labour is f**ked good and proper.
-
Croft
Yes, you ARE wrong and you've got to the core of the left-wing mythology. Read this post thoroughly because I'm going to set out precisely where my philosophy is, and why I am in despair at where Labour is going.
The Left ALWAYS convinces itself that anyone and everyone who accepts positions anywhere to the right of them is, by definition, an unprincipled traitor to the cause.
It's always been thus. That's what I was alluding to last night in the comment about the insult of choice in the 1980s being "ideologically unsound".
Here's where that leads to. It leads to a situation where the last Labour Govt brought in working tax credits, spent a fortune on a new school building programme, massively increased funding to the NHS and led the world in the response to the Great Crash, blunting what could have been a re-run of the Great Depression by active Govt borrowing and spending, and yet the idle insult from the Left is that they were Red Tories. We "might as well have had a Tory Govt" because "there was no difference between Labour and the Tories."
There are two types of people who trot out those lines. One is the genuine hard left types who don't want Labour to blunt the worst effects of Capitalism. They WANT the worst effects so that people will hurt and kick against it. And I hate those people with a vengeance. They are the zealots who genuinely want the poorest and weakest to be put through hell to be radicalised. The second type are just useful idiots. Woolly headed thinkers who parrot those lines because they sound deep and thoughtful, but who never actually think about the genuine successes of the last Labour Govt.
Now, I said you were wrong when you trotted out that idle trope that effectively conflated pragmatism with having no moral compass whatsoever. And here's why.
My stance and, I think, the stance of the vast majority of the PLP is that Labour's position should be to be as radical as possible whilst still being electable. There is then a genuine, adult debate to be had about where that point is. I was way to the left of Blair on this issue, but equally I'm some way to the right of Corbyn. That doesn't make me someone who has no moral standpoint, no ideology and no principles. It comes from f**king well thinking HARD on the issue for years, and learning from where we went wrong both in 1983 and in 1997.
If you want a binary "us pure: them unprincipled" division, then you utterly misunderstand politics. But I fear that is where Labour is headed, having seen the vitriol that the recently arrived members seem to have for the longer standing party members.
If you're serious about contributing to this discussion, leave idle, thoughtless playground quips like the one you posted at the door and actually engage with the arguments of those who disagree with you. Otherwise, for all your good intentions, you WILL destroy this party.
-
Copps
What relevance does % of the electorate have?
I'm not sure there's any point in us discussing this any further. You are convinced that a Labour Party with a membership of 1% of the electorate is, by definition, a success. I'm equally convinced that a Labour Party that convinced itself that it is right and that the country will see that it is right is on the same treadmill that made it unelectable a generation ago.
You will win this battle. I'm sure of that. But I'm equally sure that you WILL lose the war. Because you are committing the mistake that the optimistic idealist always does. You extrapolate the particular into the general. And you close your eyes and ears to contrary evidence.
I'll say it again. I was that person a generation ago. And I, and a few hundred thousand like me, we're responsible for 18 years of Tory rule.
But I know you won't listen to that because this time it's different.
It always is...
-
Interesting thoughts here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-contest-opposition-support-poll-theresa-may-owen-smith-a7148561.html
To me, Corbyn is a symptom of the radical change that is happening in politics at the moment. Labour in its traditional form probably can't hold together as we move inexorably towards multi party politics. The contradictions within the Tory party have been postponed by the Brexit vote and the "coronation" of Theresa May, but they will resurface, I have no doubt.
From the point of view of the Left, Albie is surely right in that the future lies in forming alliances amongst the anti-Tory opposition. As are those who advocate a move to PR.
In reality, whoever is the leader of the Labour Party, their chances of forming a majority government are somewhere between slim and none. The sooner they recognise this the better.
-
Now we're getting somewhere BST.
Elsewhere on this board, you've stated that how things appear to be are more important than they actually are. Yet now you state that there's a false narrative (I agree with you on this by the way) surrounding New Labour policies. Now, you (correctly) state that New Labour did a lot to ease the impacts of the 2008 crash.
To the population at large, Blair and Brown's Labour are responsible for the deregulation of the banks and the high deficit that the Tories have turned into the bogeyman for the past decade. Again, it doesn't matter what they ACTUALLY did to the electorate at large - what matters is what they APPEARED to do - or not do - and now there simply is no room for centrist Labour. May's Tories - despite promising to be as right wing as Cameron's mob - said all the right things to sew up the centre. Lib Dems will mop up a few more with their anti-Brexit stance. Why would centrist Labour be any more appealing to the electorate that blames them for Iraq and the economic crash and any point in the next generation than Corbyn's more radical ideas?
Also, you keep trotting out the "things will be different" line, while failing to realise that things ARE different now. Not just in an abstract mood-of-the-nation sense, but in a practical sense in there are dozens less Labour seats due to Scotland and imminent boundary changes.
-
Macho
I think you have missed my central point. In fact I think this is core to the problem.
When I was talking about the inanity of "people" conflating the last Labour Govt with the Tories, I wasn't talking about the general electorate. I was talking about our flood of new Labour Party members. I can excuse a lack of sophistication in the general electorate because most people don't think about politics that deeply. But I'm not accepting it in Labour Party members. Because the first pre-requisite for getting involved in politics should be to bloody well THINK about issues, not trot out trite memes that sound clever but are actually devoid of any content. If members of the party are unable or unwilling to engage in serious discussion about the party's past, how the hell can they make a meaningful contribution to its future? If one joins in with the trope that "Brown and Blair were responsible for the deregulation of the banks and the crash" then one is complicit in encouraging a myth to go down as reality.
Why would a Labour Party member do that? Why not challenge the myth instead of parroting it?
That's the first problem with your post.
Then you flip it round 180 degrees and conflate what a section of the Left believe (about Iraq) with the belief of "the electorate". You need to get out of your bubble. For good or ill, the majority of the electorate don't really give a damn about Iraq. It's something that agitates a section of the Left and essentially no-one else. Not in terms of choosing who to vote for. (And before the condemnations start, that is a value-free comment. It's a judgement of fact, not of morality.)
That's the second problem.
The third one is really bizarre. You say, probably correctly, that the electorate blames Labour for overspending. And you conclude that the response has to be for Labour to move leftwards. I'm REALLY struggling to see how that one ties up as a logical approach.
For what it's worth, I agree pretty much entirely with McDonnell's economic policy. But then it's little different from that of Ed Balls. Both were and are absolutely correct to oppose Austerity and to call for a move to current balance and capital investment. I fail to see how the Corbyn-McDonnell axis is doing anything on that score that couldn't and wouldn't be done by anyone to the left of Chukka Umanna. And if the current leadership are going to continue with the old policy, shouldn't they be vigorously arguing that the old policy was correct?
To be honest, your post, set as a justification for the necessity of a break with the past is an intellectual muddle. I'm feeling Occam's Razor coming out here. It's much more easily explicable as the post of someone who decides their conclusion and swueezes badly-fitting arguments into that framework.
And then your final paragraph. I'll repeat. It is ALWAYS different. In 1983, we had Great Depression economic conditions. We had the VERY real threat of nuclear war. And a unilateralist Labour Party with a very left wing manifesto was hammered in the election. It's not good enough to simply ASSUME that the current conditions are ripe for a left-ist Labour platform. I'll repeat ad nauseum. Labour ONLY wins when it acts as a big umbrella over the Left. It cannot and will not be anything more than a protest party if it indulges itself in its comfort zone. And it is THAT fact that makes me so f**king angry when Labour Party members ignorantly or deliberately misrepresent the party's recent past, and assumes that anyone to the right of Corbyn is a traitor.
-
Lurching to the left on economic policy isn't why I think Corbyn could have had wide appeal. Simply being different to the previous Labour government is what was required. The electorate doesn't give a shit about the minutiae of economic policy, but I think they would give a shit about an anti-establishment outsider who has been on the right side of history time and time again when the government hasn't and who is one of the few Labour MPs who isn't burdened with those negative New Labour myths.
I don't understand why feeling that Labour as a central party are an irrelevance at best, tainted at worst is a hard concept to grasp. There just isn't room for them in the middle.
Also, I'd say the electorate at large do care about Iraq - did then and do now. I've never met a single person who was positive about our troops being over there for as long as they were, on the grounds that they were there on and I don't just hang around in liberal echo chambers like you seem to imply. That stink is on New Labour and will be for a long time whether you think it should be or not.
-
Macho
Your postings are thoroughly depressing in that you are showing EXACTLY the blinkered mindset that I keep talking about.
Where have I EVER said that Labour should be "centrist"? You are simply not listening to what I say. You are projecting an impression of what you WANT me to be saying, because that strengthens your belief that you are correct.
What I have been saying consistently is that, in the current electoral system, Labour should be a broad church, not a narrow faction. The fact that you interpret that as meaning that Labour should be centrist speaks depressing volumes. It the puerile binary approach to this issue which is deeply, deeply divisive and troubling. But it's one that I am seeing every single day in this discussion, all over the Internet.
If you're not with Corbyn, you're a Blairite/centrist/Red Tory/careerist/warmonger/Judas. That's not political debate. It is from the "f**k off, I'm right and you're f**king wrong" playground.
We need better than this Macho or we are f**ked, no matter how many members sign up.
-
Setting aside the bickering on here for a minute, how many remember ex Labour MP Chris Mullin and his book "A Very British Coup", written in 1982 and dramatised in 1988;
A Very British Coup - All 4 (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-british-coup)
I strongly recommend having a butchers at this series, cracking political drama.
Still, it couldn't happen now I expect, could it?
-
Because of FPTP, in this country the two major parties absolutely need the centre vote in order to win a general election. I don't like it but that's what we've got, and the membership needs to accept it (and channel their desire for change into pushing for PR).
As the centre-left alternative in what is effectively a two party system, Labour needs to carry a broad appeal across the left AND also with floating voters in the centre. It's a difficult balancing act, there's no doubt about that, but a competent, focused leader who isn't divisive could achieve it.
This is why Corbyn is not the man to lead the party as he has none of those qualities. I can't help but like the guy and I personally agree with many of his views, but he does not even come close to carrying a broad appeal across the range of voters needed to lead this party to victory at an election. He is incapable of delivering a coherent message that resonates with, or represents, the masses outside a relatively narrow subset of people the left, and he is unwilling to compromise ideologically even when his views are totally at odds with those of the voters that he must win over.
Sure, the bloke is worshipped within his membership bubble. Great. But what use is that to anyone if he alienates everyone else in the electorate? All that does is give the Conservatives an open goal, they won't have to fight very hard to keep the floating vote and can get away with a lot more shit (such as appointing frigging BoZo as Foreign Secretary). This is why a united opposition, even if they are not strong enough to win outright is better than no opposition like we have now.
It's no surprise then that I will be voting for Smith. I have no particular attachment to him, but contrary some belief amongst the party membership he's not some 'undercover Blairite' and he seems like the sort of chap who possesses the basic abilities you'd expect from any parliamentarian worth their salt, like flexibility, willingness to co-operate and compromise.
Who knows? He could turn out to be crap, but I'll take my f**king chances because someone like Corbyn, leading one of two major parties in this system is guaranteed to fail. And at least Smith will actually have the common decency to sling his hook if he's crap.
-
Owen Smith - the former Head of Public Relations at the asset-stripping and somewhat ethically questionable pharmacutical giant Pfizer - this is the man you trust to end austerity and save the NHS? This is what Labour has come to has it?
Clement Atlee wont be turning in his grave - he will be digging it deeper.
-
Just as a counterweight to the argument that Labour needs to move to the right to secure power, the following analysis gives some food for thought;
Should the Labour Party move to the Left or to the Right to win power? The Spine says Right, but the Brain should think a bit harder. ~ Ripped-off Britons (http://www.blog.rippedoffbritons.com/2015/08/should-labour-party-move-to-left-or-to.html)
Sometimes the received wisdom needs to be challenged by a new appraisel, particularly when the system and old alliances are in a state of change.
-
Owen Smith - the former Head of Public Relations at the asset-stripping and somewhat ethically questionable pharmacutical giant Pfizer - this is the man you trust to end austerity and save the NHS? This is what Labour has come to has it?
Clement Atlee wont be turning in his grave - he will be digging it deeper.
A lobbyist? Oh, joy!
-
TRB.
No, not a lobbyist. But that's the meme that Monentum is pushing.
Actual facts are pretty much irrelevant in this game, it seems.
-
TRB.
No, not a lobbyist. But that's the meme that Monentum is pushing.
Actual facts are pretty much irrelevant in this game, it seems.
Well if the Head of Policy and Goverment Relations at Pfizer and Government Policy at Amgen isn't trying to persuade national goverments to amend their policies to benefit his company - what is be doing?
Although what he actually did at Amgen is a little unclear - as you say Billy actual facts being irrelevant eh!
But, in an embarrassing U-turn, he was recently forced to correct his CV online. The Pontypridd MP had claimed to be “a director and member of the UK and Ireland board of Amgen”, a major pharmaceutical company based in the US. He has amended his website so it reads: “a director and member of the UK and Ireland team of Amgen”.
Smith worked at Amgen before he was elected in 2010. Questions about his CV began after the Guardian approached Amgen about its tax status.
In response to queries about the company’s tax affairs, Amgen said: “Owen Smith’s position at Amgen did not give him any involvement or influence on the topics raised here – he was an employee in the UK for 18 months and was not an officer of the company or board member.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/owen-smith-pledge-equal-representation-of-women-in-labour
http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/07/what-does-owen-smith-believe/
-
Macho
Your postings are thoroughly depressing in that you are showing EXACTLY the blinkered mindset that I keep talking about.
Where have I EVER said that Labour should be "centrist"? You are simply not listening to what I say. You are projecting an impression of what you WANT me to be saying, because that strengthens your belief that you are correct.
What I have been saying consistently is that, in the current electoral system, Labour should be a broad church, not a narrow faction. The fact that you interpret that as meaning that Labour should be centrist speaks depressing volumes. It the puerile binary approach to this issue which is deeply, deeply divisive and troubling. But it's one that I am seeing every single day in this discussion, all over the Internet.
If you're not with Corbyn, you're a Blairite/centrist/Red Tory/careerist/warmonger/Judas. That's not political debate. It is from the "f**k off, I'm right and you're f**king wrong" playground.
We need better than this Macho or we are f**ked, no matter how many members sign up.
Just a few pages ago you noted Labour historically doesn't get elected when it lurches to the left. You have, in the past accused the membership of being self indulgent by electing a left wing leader who has been at odds with the party's centrist wing in the past.
My point has always been that Labour under Corbyn COULD have been an umbrella for the left, attracting progressives from every background. This doesn't seem to be getting through though.
By contrast, I've never once called Labour rebels Judases or criticised you as such for not subscribing to Corbyn's views. It seems like you're the only one projecting here, BST.
-
Macho
No, you haven't descended to those depths unlike at least one poster round here. But, along with Crofty and pretty much every other Corbynista I've exchanged views, with you HAVE set up the classic false dichotomy of the Left: if you're not with us over here, you're with them over there. You have assumed that because I dislike some of Corbyn's policies, and most of his leadership skills, that I'm a"centrist".
I expect that sort of Manichaean thinking from puddle-headed SWP bods like Yargo. But the strength of the Labour Party has always been the fact that it is a continuous spectrum. It's not a black and white party.
You might be one of the exceptions, but everything I'm seeing from the zealots who have rushed into the party of late is that they have no interest in a big tent and in compromise. They are right and that is that. And that worries me greatly for the future of the party.
Now, onto whether Corbyn COULD have built a big tent. Yes, maybe he could. But he would have profoundly disappointed his new following. And I'm also struggling to see how a man who has called Hamas "friends" and who was the Editor of a magazine that, weeks after the Brighton bomb, published a letter saying, "What do you call 4 dead Tories? A start." is going to have much appeal to moderates of any hue. Or have any chance of ever getting remotely close to No10.
But maybe I'm just too centrist.
-
If, as you just said, the majority of the electorate don't care about actually invading Iraq why would they care about something Corbyn said about Hamas years ago?
That's just one of the questions. There are others, of course, like - do you spend as much time discrediting Tory politicians as you do labour ones? You supporting labour and all. Smith apparently gets a free-pass as we've seen above.
-
To me, the whole problem boils down to one very simple question.
How do you think Corbyn will get the electorate to follow him when he can't even get the majority of his own MPs to do so?
-
Copps.
Do I criticise Tory MPs? Oh, only for about the past 40 years. Go and have a look at what I was saying right here in 2010 for example. Or every year since and before then.
But you're doing it again mate. If you're not with Corbyn, your on the other side, eh? Not useful.
As for Corbyn and Hamas and the IRA, as I've said before (and you've ignored before) he will be painted, like it or not, as the terrorists' friend. You need a REALLY strong response to that. I'm struggling to see what that response is when both Corbyn and McDonnell initially opposed the Irish peace process because, as they said, the IRA freedom fighters gave their lives for a United Ireland, not a compromise.
Any answers?
-
To me, the whole problem boils down to one very simple question.
How do you think Corbyn will get the electorate to follow him when he can't even get the majority of his own MPs to do so?
Well, approaching 2/3rds of labour's 600k members will follow him in spite of those MPs - so what better indication do you want at the moment? (I know bst doesn't think it's significant but what else is there - you have no evidence to say the opposite is the case)
I'd recommend reading the link Albie posted, not a thorough analysis but provides some indicators. He basically needs to appeal to those who don't vote (some evidence he is doing that given the age and social make-up of that group) and appeal to 'working class' voters whose political views don't really follow a simple left-right dichotomy.
If we can drag a few doubters such as yourself and bst along the way to vote for him then you never know do you.
-
Copps.
Do I criticise Tory MPs? Oh, only for about the past 40 years. Go and have a look at what I was saying right here in 2010 for example. Or every year since and before then.
But you're doing it again mate. If you're not with Corbyn, your on the other side, eh? Not useful.
No billy, YOU're doing it again. YOU have no idea what Labour party you support you just know it's NOT Corbyn. I can sit here in full confidence and tell you I want a socialist Labour leader and thatI support nine out of ten of the views that Corbyn has. I have no idea what the 'other side' is - I would really like to know, in fact, because it is yet to define itself.
As for Corbyn and Hamas and the IRA, as I've said before (and you've ignored before) he will be painted, like it or not, as the terrorists' friend. You need a REALLY strong response to that. I'm struggling to see what that response is when both Corbyn and McDonnell initially opposed the Irish peace process because, as they said, the IRA freedom fighters gave their lives for a United Ireland, not a compromise.
Any answers?
Crikey, is this meant to be news? Corbyn will be portrayed badly by the press shocker! Terrorist sympathiser wouldn't even be the worst. Just add it to the list. The world's changing - people don't get their information from the same sources they once did and trust has eroded in the established way of doing things. There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.
If you need reminding - Boris Johnson currently has a seat of power in this country.
-
Owen Smith - the former Head of Public Relations at the asset-stripping and somewhat ethically questionable pharmacutical giant Pfizer - this is the man you trust to end austerity and save the NHS? This is what Labour has come to has it?
Clement Atlee wont be turning in his grave - he will be digging it deeper.
Yes, he spent some of his career in a top PR job for big pharmaceuticals, but I don't see how that necessarily translates into wanting to pursue privatisation of the NHS when actually in charge of public policy. As an MP he has voted along with the party against NHS privatisation and has recently spoken in favour of a 100% publicly owned NHS. As for austerity, I have no idea why anyone would think that he isn't anti-austerity based on his campaign so far.
So yes, this IS what Labour has come to. Does Smith have a perfect history? Of course not, and he may not be the right man going forward, but he is the least toxic option at this moment. I don't see how the party can continue to function with these divisions if Corbyn is re-elected (which I don't doubt is very likely).
Clement Attlee you say? Is this the same Clement Attlee who said:
"Labour has nothing to gain by dwelling in the past. Nor do I think we can impress the nation by adopting a futile left-wingism. I regard myself as Left of Centre which is where a Party Leader ought to be."
(Yep, I did just nick that quote from Wikipedia)
-
To me, the whole problem boils down to one very simple question.
How do you think Corbyn will get the electorate to follow him when he can't even get the majority of his own MPs to do so?
Well, approaching 2/3rds of labour's 600k members will follow him in spite of those MPs - so what better indication do you want at the moment? (I know bst doesn't think it's significant but what else is there - you have no evidence to say the opposite is the case)
I'd recommend reading the link Albie posted, not a thorough analysis but provides some indicators. He basically needs to appeal to those who don't vote (some evidence he is doing that given the age and social make-up of that group) and appeal to 'working class' voters whose political views don't really follow a simple left-right dichotomy.
If we can drag a few doubters such as yourself and bst along the way to vote for him then you never know do you.
I would quite happily go along with him if he could do what a Labour leader is supposed to do and keep all the factions of the party together and at least give the appearance of unity. You admit yourself that less than two-thirds of the party support him - which is a pitiful thing to say in support of someone who's supposed to be uniting a party.
Also, if the views of the Party membership are that vital, how can you support a Labour leader who votes against the policy decided by that membership in Parliament??
You are missing the point completely, it's not all about the policies (there has and always will be disagreements within the Labour party about what they should be), it's his complete lack of ability to LEAD.
Far from giving the appearance of being a potential Prime Minister, he bumbles about, mincing his words when talking about a subject that difficult for him to talk about because of his previous stances; and when he does talk with any substance about a subject he's on comfortable ground with, he talks like a Guardian feature article instead of in the simple direct language that the very people you say he should be enthusing can take on board quickly. Yes, it might be 'soundbite politics' but it works a damn site better at winning an audience than giving them lecture notes.
On top of that, it appears (though I could be wrong) that when it comes to facing his opponents within the party he's happy to stand back and let McDonnell and Milne (and others) be his rotweilers/enforcers instead of having the balls that Kinnock had in 1985 and saying it himself. He wants to keep his hands clean but it just makes him look ineffective, or at worst, a silent (and therefore cowardly) condoner.
And again, I asked it before but I haven't seen anyone answer it - what has he done - if anything - to win round the doubters in the PLP? Uniting the party is what a LEADER does, it's the very core of his job description. As far as I can see he's done absolutely nothing in the ten months he's been leader to address this problem - in fact from various accounts he's done the exact opposite and antagonised them instead. Can somebody enlighten me as to what he's really done about this?
-
There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.
Remind me, what's his consistent view about the EU?
-
If you look at the links I posted he has also said he was for 'more choice in the NHS' (ie private companies running NHS services) and he abstained on the vote against the Welfare Bill last year - thus supporting the austerity cuts.
Which is the problem I have with him. What is his position - on on anything? He says one thing one minute - and another the next. His background is big business, in particular ones who have been involved in unethical business practice that it was his job to sell. He seems a perfect fit for the Tories not Labour.
I cant see any way the division will be healed, the two sides are just too far apart. If the PLP dont want a leader with a socialist agenda (not even a radically socialist one) then what do they want? It certainly wont be one that helps the less well-off in our society will it, which is what the founders of the party and then Atlee attempted to do.
(I get all my stuff from Wikipedia - dont worry no-one will notice)
-
There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.
Remind me, what's his consistent view about the EU?
He has been consistent in that he has had a view on it, which has changed as the nature of the EU has changed. I believe his position on the referendum was that it has a lot of problems, we cant control immigration whilst we are in it, but on balance we are probably better off in it than not.
-
There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has. He has that going for him.
Remind me, what's his consistent view about the EU?
He has been consistent in that he has had a view on it, which has changed as the nature of the EU has changed. I believe his position on the referendum was that it has a lot of problems, we cant control immigration whilst we are in it, but on balance we are probably better off in it than not.
Really? So his view was changed by the changing nature of the EU was it? What exactly changed about the EU when he became leader of Labour to make him change his mind..?
-
Another little nugget I've found - is Jezza still consistent with this view he had in the Morning Star of 24 September 2003..?
"New Labour has alienated millions of people...there should be an annual election for leader."
-
Wilts.
Good attempt at squaring the Corbyn circle on the EU. It sounds like you've even convinced yourself.
But exactly HOW did the EU change so much that Corbyn decided to ditch 3 decades of opposition to it whilst remaining true to his core beliefs? (EDIT: just seen Glyn's post on the same theme.)
And whilst we're on the subject of consistency, what is Corbyn's current position on NATO, and how does that tie in with his long-held beliefs?
-
There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!
-
Interesting.
It should be pretty clear that Corbyn now has two major roles. One as the leader of the labour party and one as a politician with his own political views. At times he will need to represent the party line (EU)* and at times he will vote on his own views (Trident). That seems clear to me.
For the disinterested audience reading, what is going on here is that when he does stick to his views he will be labelled too left field to be leader, and when he does compromise on his views to lead the party he will be labelled inconsistent.
I hope everyone can see the game that BST and Glynn are playing. They apparently want to have their cake and eat it. It's a bias really.
It's not the only bias that Corbyn and the labour party face (http://www.thecanary.co/2016/05/06/the-abysmal-local-elections-coverage-shows-the-bbc-has-moved-beyond-bias-to-pure-propaganda/)
*A further idiosyncrasy, of course, being that, according to the knockers, he didn't campaign ferociously enough for the remain side when the figures, in fact, show that he campaigned a hell of a lot more than Angela Eagle in terms of sheer volume and work hours put in. Now he is being criticised for campaigning at all.
-
Croft
Yes, you ARE wrong and you've got to the core of the left-wing mythology. Read this post thoroughly because I'm going to set out precisely where my philosophy is, and why I am in despair at where Labour is going.
The Left ALWAYS convinces itself that anyone and everyone who accepts positions anywhere to the right of them is, by definition, an unprincipled traitor to the cause.
It's always been thus. That's what I was alluding to last night in the comment about the insult of choice in the 1980s being "ideologically unsound".
Here's where that leads to. It leads to a situation where the last Labour Govt brought in working tax credits, spent a fortune on a new school building programme, massively increased funding to the NHS and led the world in the response to the Great Crash, blunting what could have been a re-run of the Great Depression by active Govt borrowing and spending, and yet the idle insult from the Left is that they were Red Tories. We "might as well have had a Tory Govt" because "there was no difference between Labour and the Tories."
There are two types of people who trot out those lines. One is the genuine hard left types who don't want Labour to blunt the worst effects of Capitalism. They WANT the worst effects so that people will hurt and kick against it. And I hate those people with a vengeance. They are the zealots who genuinely want the poorest and weakest to be put through hell to be radicalised. The second type are just useful idiots. Woolly headed thinkers who parrot those lines because they sound deep and thoughtful, but who never actually think about the genuine successes of the last Labour Govt.
Now, I said you were wrong when you trotted out that idle trope that effectively conflated pragmatism with having no moral compass whatsoever. And here's why.
My stance and, I think, the stance of the vast majority of the PLP is that Labour's position should be to be as radical as possible whilst still being electable. There is then a genuine, adult debate to be had about where that point is. I was way to the left of Blair on this issue, but equally I'm some way to the right of Corbyn. That doesn't make me someone who has no moral standpoint, no ideology and no principles. It comes from f**king well thinking HARD on the issue for years, and learning from where we went wrong both in 1983 and in 1997.
If you want a binary "us pure: them unprincipled" division, then you utterly misunderstand politics. But I fear that is where Labour is headed, having seen the vitriol that the recently arrived members seem to have for the longer standing party members.
If you're serious about contributing to this discussion, leave idle, thoughtless playground quips like the one you posted at the door and actually engage with the arguments of those who disagree with you. Otherwise, for all your good intentions, you WILL destroy this party.
Thanks for the lesson BST, but I'm afraid I am not a Labour party member or a Supporter. I personally don't feel we should identify ourselves with who we voted for at the last election but given the context of the discussion it should come of no great surprise that I voted for the Tories in every election where I have been legible to vote. Therefore when I speak about the current situation surrounding Labour I speak as someone who disagrees with the left ideology wholeheartedly.
So, back to the original point; I did not suggest that you, or any one of the PLP are traitors to the cause because they aren't hard left like Corbyn. I merely built on your words that stated you believed it was the number one aim of the Labour MPs to be re-elected. Personally I believe the number one aim of any MP is to represent the people that voted for them under the values they outlined they would protect and improve when they campaigned during the election. If that doesn't lead to re-election then at the very least they have done (or failed trying) what they were elected to do. Perhaps this is where you and I have differing viewpoints of what the main aim of an MP is.
But I am still interested to hear your answer to the following: Which is more desirable for you: A Labour Party in opposition that is representative of the membership or a Labour Party in Government that isn't? I ask that regardless of the current identity crisis and right/left ideologies.
-
There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!
I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.
-
At times he will need to represent the party line (EU)* and at times he will vote on his own views (Trident). That seems clear to me.
And you accuse me and BST of having our cake and eating it too? Hahahahaha, nice one!
-
There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!
I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.
How exactly is it a coup? Has anybody broken any party rules?
-
At times he will need to represent the party line (EU)* and at times he will vote on his own views (Trident). That seems clear to me.
And you accuse me and BST of having our cake and eating it too? Hahahahaha, nice one!
Do tell me what you're struggling with? The nuclear renewal vote was an individual vote for each MP on which he voted. Interestingly, only 140/230 labour MPs voted in favour so not the overwhelming majority you might believe exists. The EU was not a vote for MPs but a national constitutional referendum that covered vast swathes of our lives in which the vast majority of his party supported remain.
Are you willing to accept now that he will compromise his own views to follow party lines in the future or not?
-
There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!
I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.
How exactly is it a coup? Has anybody broken any party rules?
It's an attempt/coerced act to topple/overthrow the leader. It may not be strictly a 'coup' as defined in the Oxford Dictionary but it's accurate enough for me.
-
There's something else I'd Like to ask those who are calling the PLP dissenters 'traitors' for opposing the party leader....how can you be so hypocritical when Corbyn has been what you call a 'traitor' not just once but continuously by opposing leader after leader of the Labour party? He did the exact same thing to Kinnock, Smith and Blair!
I don't think people are calling them traitors for opposing the Party leader, but perhaps more because of a coup to remove him from office in a bid to better their own career.
How exactly is it a coup? Has anybody broken any party rules?
It's an attempt/coerced act to topple/overthrow the leader. It may not be strictly a 'coup' as defined in the Oxford Dictionary but it's accurate enough for me.
You overthrow someone by voting you don't have confidence in him??
-
Crofty
You are doing it again. You are setting up binary false dichotomies.
The world isn't a binary "either THIS or its polar opposite" place. That is a juvenile way of looking at important arguments. The choice that you pose is meaningless because it is not the one that exists in the real world. It's not "do you want us to be ideologically pure and permanently out of power, or jettison every principle and be in power." That's a daft question (although it's one that seems to have traction with the Corbynistas.
I've explained before, on this thread, where I stand, but since you don't seem to have read it, I'll repeat it. There are inevitably some compromises that any large political organisation has to make. It cannot satisfy everyone. (And by the way,reflect on that when you talk about what "the membership" wants...) There has to be give and take, both to keep "the membership" happy, and to make itself electable. I'd have thought that much was self-evident, no?
There is a continuous spectrum of views, not a binary division. Labour has to sit somewhere on that spectrum AND BE ELECTABLE.
-
Copps
Forgive me but this is now getting silly. Your stand is changing daily.
A week or so ago, you said that all you wanted from a Labour Govt was a couple of policies that Ed Miliband espoused. Then last night you said that you support Corbyn because he is a true socialist.
You elaborated on that today, saying that Corbyn is consistent in his views. But he changed his view on the EU pretty much overnight. And you say this is OK because he had to follow a party line. Even though you also say it wasn't a party issue.
I'm struggling to follow the thread here.
Anyway, back to the question I posed earlier. What IS Corbyn's take on NATO? There is a really serious possibility of an Article 5 moment in the Baltics within the next few years. Would PM Corbyn commit British forces in such an event? Because every word of this article he wrote screams "no" to me.
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3235-Welcome-to-the-Nato-fest#.V5UAWvRHmnM
Have a read. It's pretty lightweight stuff. In fact, quite scarily lightweight for a would-be PM. I can see why he flunked his degree though. That essay might get a D- at Islington Poly.
But actually, this isn't a laughing matter. This is as serious as it gets. Before I could dream of supporting Corbyn, I'd want an unequivocal answer to the Article 5 question. There is no responsibility greater than that on a PM's shoulders.
-
From a perspective of someone who isn't a labour party member - I can see there is a problem in that the MPs don't support their elected leader, but their party members do?
Is that about right - not the whys and wherefores or political histories etc, but just an indication of where the support lies?
However, what that does mean, to people like me who frankly don't rate any party or politician too highly - they are all as bad as each other IMHO and I have spent most of my adult life being a-political anyway. So much so I rarely vote at general elections...
Shouldn't labour, the MPs, leader and the members be just as concerned with persuading the vast part of the electorate who either doesn't care, or prefers to vote "anyone but.." that labour can be worthy of their vote?
To an outsider, the whole thing looks a mess. I am not interested whether BST's argument is the most accurate or not, nor anyone elses in the thread.
But how does the current shambles of the labour party help convince the electorate as a whole???
-
Copps
Forgive me but this is now getting silly. Your stand is changing daily.
A week or so ago, you said that all you wanted from a Labour Govt was a couple of policies that Ed Miliband espoused. Then last night you said that you support Corbyn because he is a true socialist.
You elaborated on that today, saying that Corbyn is consistent in his views. But he changed his view on the EU pretty much overnight. And you say this is OK because he had to follow a party line. Even though you also say it wasn't a party issue.
Are you in politics? I'm starting to think you might be. It's as easy as clicking on my username and going back through my posts if that's the level you want to go to;
a) "you said that all you wanted from a Labour Govt was a couple of policies that Ed Miliband espoused"
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.
I didn't say that's all I wanted.
b) "Corbyn because he is a true socialist"
I want a socialist Labour leader
Can't see the word true there.
c) "saying that Corbyn is consistent in his views"
There aren't many other politicians who have been as consistent in their views as Corbyn has
The relative sense in which I speak is plain to see (or so I thought)
Tedious tbh this isn't it?
-
Anyway, back to the question I posed earlier. What IS Corbyn's take on NATO? There is a really serious possibility of an Article 5 moment in the Baltics within the next few years. Would PM Corbyn commit British forces in such an event? Because every word of this article he wrote screams "no" to me.
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3235-Welcome-to-the-Nato-fest#.V5UAWvRHmnM
Have a read. It's pretty lightweight stuff. In fact, quite scarily lightweight for a would-be PM. I can see why he flunked his degree though. That essay might get a D- at Islington Poly.
But actually, this isn't a laughing matter. This is as serious as it gets. Before I could dream of supporting Corbyn, I'd want an unequivocal answer to the Article 5 question. There is no responsibility greater than that on a PM's shoulders.
Yeah, I've just read the article and all I take from it is that he is critical of the organisation and critical of commitments to overspend on military defence (in an era when our military interventions have been less than successful). I agree with that personally, don't you?
-
Well if you Google it Billy you will see he has said recently that he believes Britain should stay in Nato
https://www.rt.com/uk/315827-corbyn-mcdonnell-nato-membership/
and he is prepared to commit to the Nato requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-considers-adopting-nato-spending-guarantee-in-rethink-of-defence-policy-a6698231.html
but I could just as easily have picked up negative stories about him as well - as you did.
However as this appears to be a major issue for you then can you tell me what Owen Smith's view on Nato is? Because I can't find anything whatsoever. So I take it then you will abstaining from the vote?
Of course circumstances change over time, but there is no way that whoever is PM at the time could commit the UK to an action in the Baltics with the commitments we have at the moment. We can't even match them fully or effectively - has the much publicised vote to get involved in Syria achieved anything at all?
And you and I both know the vote in November is a lot more crucial to future NATO action than whatever Corbyn (or Smith) is thinking now.
-
Copps
Once we get onto the minutiae of grammar as a response, rather than the bleeding obvious substantive points, it's really rather pointless. I'm sorry if I slightly misrepresented you. I was making a pasta sauce at the time and my one hand internetting isn't what it could be.
Would it be fair to say that, when asked which policies you wanted from the Labour Party, the only two you mentioned were ones that were core policies at the last election?
And that you've said that you really admire Corbyn's consistency, and also his ability to be inconsistent when suitable?
See, I'm not doing this to make a point (I have no active role in politics by the way, so bad call there - that's one of many in this thread). I'm doing it because I'm genuinely interested in the commitment that so many people have found for Corbyn. It genuinely bemuses me. And I've yet to see anything properly substantial to back it up.
-
Wilts. I KNOW that Corbyn has no intention of pulling us out of NATO. Because he's said himself that there's no public appetite for that. Very pointedly, he DIDN'T say that it was because he believed in the core aims and policies of NATO.
Which, as I'm sure you fully appreciate, is the reason for my earlier comments.
As for Smith, the issue doesn't arise because his commitment to NATO isn't in doubt. He hasn't written several piss-poorly argued criticisms of NATO in the Morning Star.
-
Well I'm running off memory here so forgive me if I get some details wrong. When I refer to changes to benefits I am mostly referring to changes to disability benefits. Labour did broadly object to the changes in 2012 but the bedroom tax was used as a headline issue when it was just the tip of the iceberg. Their policy at the time paid some oblique attention to ‘reform’ and didn't make any hard and fast commitments about the budget. This was at a time when there was systematic evidence that the benefits changes were immediately affecting disabled people negatively and exacerbating inequality among an already disadvantaged group. At times like this, we don’t need some austerity apologising muddled up economic argument, we need a party who is unequivocally going to stand up for people’s rights in the face of the evidence, and I don’t think we got that.
Mental health ties into this because under most definitions it is a disability and is a major part of many other impairments. To me we’re in the dark ages of understanding it and treating it. Part of that is understanding the relationship between inequality and mental health, which we also don’t fully appreciate. The appointment of a minster for mental health, then, makes a lot of sense to me and give me the impression that Corbyn appreciates these issue in greater depth than Miliband did.
The housing policies could be broadly similar – on that subject I know less, but I know it’s scandalous that letting agents in the private rental sector are getting away with what they do.
-
Copps
With you 100% on mental health as an issue. It's been off everyone's agenda until recently, but there is a cross-party consensus beginning to emerge. It's not a left-vs-right thing. In fairness to them (and I rarely say that) the LDs have pushed this issue more than any other party over the past few years.
On housing, this was Miliband's approach 16 months back.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/communities/news/63145/ed-milibands-full-speech-labours-housing-policy
I've not heard anything more radical from Corbyn.
Regarding other spending promises though, you cannot claim that the two Eds were Austerians but Corbyn and McDonnell are not. The current Labour fiscal policy is (as far as I can see, because there's actually been nowt published beyond vague headline intentions) identical to the one that Labour stood on in 2015. Balance the books on current spending (including welfare). Allow continued borrowing for capital investment.
(By the way, that capital investment that Balls pushed is important. Very important. The difference between the Labour and Tory manifestos last year amounted to £25bn per year difference in borrowing and spending. The IFS said "Don't let it be said that there are no difference between the parties. There are big, meaty political decisions to be made."
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7525
Which is one reason I get so f**king angry hearing Labour Party members saying that those who aren't signed up to the Church of the Latter Day Jezza are RedTories. It is intellectually vacuous and betrays a failure to engage with basic facts.
Be consistent. Either the current policy is muddled Austerity-lite or last year's was sensible socialism.
-
Well I'm running off memory here so forgive me if I get some details wrong. When I refer to changes to benefits I am mostly referring to changes to disability benefits. Labour did broadly object to the changes in 2012 but the bedroom tax was used as a headline issue when it was just the tip of the iceberg. Their policy at the time paid some oblique attention to ‘reform’ and didn't make any hard and fast commitments about the budget. This was at a time when there was systematic evidence that the benefits changes were immediately affecting disabled people negatively and exacerbating inequality among an already disadvantaged group. At times like this, we don’t need some austerity apologising muddled up economic argument, we need a party who is unequivocally going to stand up for people’s rights in the face of the evidence, and I don’t think we got that.
Mental health ties into this because under most definitions it is a disability and is a major part of many other impairments. To me we’re in the dark ages of understanding it and treating it. Part of that is understanding the relationship between inequality and mental health, which we also don’t fully appreciate. The appointment of a minster for mental health, then, makes a lot of sense to me and give me the impression that Corbyn appreciates these issue in greater depth than Miliband did.
The housing policies could be broadly similar – on that subject I know less, but I know it’s scandalous that letting agents in the private rental sector are getting away with what they do.
Mental health is a very serious problem, for the people suffering, and their families. It's not something that you can switch on and off!.
When you have these issues, friends, families drift apart, because even those closest to you don't understand it, and how to deal with it. How can they be expected to, if the person suffering with it, doesn't know how to recover from it?.
If a person has a broken leg, they are whipped straight down to the hospital, and others show some sympathy, have a laugh probably at how it happened if it was funny. With mental illness,friends or family feel awkward, they don't know the right or wrong thing to say, it's difficult for the sufferer and close friends/relatives.
With mental illness, it's piles of tablets, talking therapy, trying to reprogramme how you see things, when this doesn't work, then they don't really know how to help you from there onwards!.
One of the ways the government think to help, is forcing a seriously unwell person into working, taking everything they have, and just saying 'get on with it'!.
The human brain still remains, an organ that they are still trying to learn about, treatments haven't really moved on much in years.
Labour appointing a mental health minister is a start. It is an illness that is deeply misunderstood, and still the people who have it are otrasized from everyday life.
People still fear those with these type of illnesses, and don't want to be around those who have these things going on, which is a real sadness in the world. Most are very normal, they lack in a vital chemical in the brain, and wouldn't think of harming anybody else!.
-
Well it looks like someone in Labour has woken up and started to smell the coffee;
Corbyn ally suggests Labour could form pacts with parties across left | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/corbyn-ally-suggests-labour-could-form-pacts-with-parties-across-left)
Much bleating to follow from the old guard I'm sure.
It would be good to hear from the SNP and Scottish Labour about this.
I expect the usual holding pattern of deny, then denigrate, and then agree will make an appearance.
-
Any parties first objective, should be to get in power, as the government of the country. Mp's can help their people who they represent, better from the inside, than being in opposition.
In the paper today, it gave me a sobering thought, Thatcher and Michael Foot, and May and Jeremy Corbyn, were on near enough the same percentages of potential support.
I admire anybody who has principles, and tries to be consistent in they're views. But Corbyn cannot lead a country, he doesn't have many of the things needed as far as i can see, i might be wrong, who knows?.
When you ask a leader if they would use a nuclear bomb, is it brave to say ''no i wouldn't'', or is it foolhardy?. As a leader you have to compromise your views for the greater good.
Nobody wants nuclear capabilities spread throughout the world, nobody wants to think of using them. Is he so principled that he couldn't just say 'Yes as the absolute last resort'?. Is it a strength to say no he wouldn't?.
It's a poor situation for the whole world, that anybody has these capabilities, the whole world seems to be in a real mess at the minute.
-
Well it looks like someone in Labour has woken up and started to smell the coffee;
Corbyn ally suggests Labour could form pacts with parties across left | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/27/corbyn-ally-suggests-labour-could-form-pacts-with-parties-across-left)
Much bleating to follow from the old guard I'm sure.
It would be good to hear from the SNP and Scottish Labour about this.
I expect the usual holding pattern of deny, then denigrate, and then agree will make an appearance.
Especially the first sentence of the last paragraph.
-
Go on then Albie. Indulge me.
What do Labour have that they can offer the SNP in order to encourage them to join a big tent?
-
That is for Labour to decide as a party, and for the SNP to set out their terms, Billy.
Labour in Scotland have fought on a unionist ticket, and may need to offer a different position next time.
I would like to see what all parties are prepared to put up for negotiation. No-one will know what shape an anti Tory alliance will take until everyone sees the need to explore the possibilities.
Just for starters, I suppose other areas of interest might be;
electoral reform
funding of political parties
internal democracy of political parties
cross jurisdiction protocols.
I suppose the SNP would look for concessions on further financial autonomy, and agreement to implement the result of the future referendum on independence. I can't see why the SNP would turn down the chance to co-operate unless the terms were ruinous.
There is surely no harm in exploratory talks. The next election is in 2020, barring the unusual. Plenty of water to flow under the bridge until then.
-
Albie
If you're going to suggest that there a legs in a left alliance [1] then you need to have some idea about the basic political landscape that would underpin such an agreement.
The SNP have one key aim which is the break-up of the U.K. Everything else is subservient to that.[2] Labour has both a principled and a self-serving interest in being opposed to that. So I genuinely don't see what common ground there can be between Labour and the SNP. And that's before you factor in the damage that would be done to Labour in England by such a deal.
As with my I've heard from Lewis, this sounds like woolly-headed, "wouldn't it be great if"-erry, rather than properly thought out politics.
'Course, if I were to be REALLY cynical, I'd say it sounds like the sort of superficially attractive but intellectually vacuous stuff that I'd put out if I was trying to stiffs the sinews of a couple of hundred thousand idealistic left-leaning folk who really want politics to be different from what it is, but don't think too deeply beyond that.
[1] To be honest, I don't consider the SNP to have any particular left-leaning core philosophy. They want independence. Full stop. The left-wing stance is a convenience because they know they would've hammered by the electorate if they portrayed themselves any other way. But it's funny that you reserve your bile for Blair and the Labour right (which is seems to include everyone to the right of Dennis Skinner) whilst proposing a pact with Salmond's party, when Wee 'Eck has spent most of his political life to the Right of Frank Field.
[2] And when you accept that, you realise that the SNP would NEVER want a deal that gets Labour closer to power. There is NOTHING in it for them. Scotland is a left-wing country (or at least, thinks itself to be - detailed belief polls show little difference between the Scots and English, but the Scots self-identify as left-wing) and the LAST thing the Scots want is a left-wing UK Govt. Because that would reduce the pressure for independence.
That is why the SNP painted New Lab as Red Tories. It's depressing that so many Labour members rush in with the same idiotic insult without stopping to think about the bigger picture.
Now. I ASSUME Lewis knows all this. Because if he doesn't, I wonder what the f**k he spends his days thinking about. But if he does, then he's stringing you idealists along, the little tinker.
-
Billy,
I don’t think the SNP is simply about “ one key aim which is the break-up of the U.K”. I suggest you consider the social policy obligations of the SNP in contrast to those of Westminster. They are clearly left of the current UK government.
The SNP are interested in self determination, and the form that might take will no doubt be fluid over time. I think the right to democratically self determine is essential to the historic role of Labour.
The Labour interest has changed over time. The UK is itself an alliance that dates from a particular set of historical circumstances, those conditions are now breaking down, and with that change comes the opportunity to renew the structure and relationships it contains.
You refer to “proposing a pact with Salmond's party”, as though this is the sum total of the suggestion when it is a part of it. Also part of the suggestion is discussion with the Greens and Lib Dems, who hold to much the same ground as New Labour.
The idea that Lewis is floating is not about whether sectoral interests wish to see (leftish) rivals hold power, it is about preventing a continuing Tory domination on a minority mandate.
I don’t know why you think anyone who explores the possibilities for change is an “idealist”. It is surely the only sane action to take if you think that the developing situation demands it.
Rather than see any initiative as “idealist”because it departs from the convention, would it not be better to think of it as an innovation that may secure a better future than the Captain Mainwaring approach.
As I have said before, I have been a Labour supporter for many years. I feel the need to change my position if new facts come to light, or the context changes, and I base my views on the evidence before me. I would call that pragmatic, not idealist.
Ps.
I don’t know what you mean by saying “you reserve your bile for Blair and the Labour right”.
Are you confusing me with another poster?
-
Albie
It's not a question of what YOU think the aims of the SNP are.
They are there in black and white in the first few lines of the SNP constitution.
http://104.46.54.198/sites/default/files/assets/documents/constitutionofthescottishnationalparty.pdf
This isn't a left-wing cuddle-fest. THAT is what the SNP's aims are. There is nothing whatsoever about a nice left-wing agreement (or anything else) for the UK as a whole.
-
Billy,
The Labour Party once had clause 4 as a key component. It was never delivered and eventually replaced.
The issue is about policy symbiosis, and the ability to deliver social change via the available mechanisms. If new alliances can offer a broader electoral base for progressive politics, why would you not explore it?
-
Billy,
I don’t think the SNP is simply about “ one key aim which is the break-up of the U.K”.
Oh, it is. It absolutely is.
-
Albie
Here's a question.
During the last election campaign, when Sturgeon regularly popped up talking to the ENGLISH electorate and telling them that the SNP really, REALLY wanted to work with Labour, do you think her motive was:
a) to explore policy symbiosis in the spirit of left-wing sisterly love, for the benefit of the proletariat of the entire UK
or
b) to encourage Cameron to face-palm and say, "what did we tell you?" to the English masses, already pissed off with the Barnett formula?
See me? I'm sure I'm a cynically old t**t, but if I was an SNP grandee, my ideal scenario would be a Tory UK Govt in perpetuity, and an equally permanent hobbling of the Labour Party. I stop to speak to the Labour Party other than to ask if they preferred the next kick in the left bollock or the right one.
Policy symbiosis? That only works if there's a vague common area in the policy Venn diagram.
-
Billy,
Your responses are interesting for what they choose to ignore.
It really does not matter whether you or I agree with the aims of the SNP. What is important is what people in Scotland support, and how we revisit our position in response to that. The SNP might well be content with a Tory government, up to the point it frustrates their ambitions.
“Policy symbiosis? That only works if there's a vague common area in the policy Venn diagram”.
I take it you think that there is no common ground then. I think that there are considerable overlaps in terms of social policy, welfare provision, NHS support, industrial and employment policy and opposition to austerity economics. Further gains might be possible if you enter into discussion.
Unable to secure a UK Parliamentary majority, Labour is reduced to a diminishing role as the “best of he rest” minority opposition.
Scotland has gone to SNP control, never likely to return to the Labour Party. With no significant electoral base in the SW of England, and with support in the north divided from the urban electorate of southern England by differing expectations and priorities, how best to proceed?
Are you seriously suggesting that Labour have a viable alternative strategy that has not already failed? Miliband went for the headliners that were meant to interrupt the progress of UKIP…..remember the carved “headstone” of pledges. Leaving Scotland aside if it troubles you, what should Labour do in its English heartlands to maximise its returns at the ballot box?
What I do not understand is why you seem to believe that it is preferable to revert to a model that did not deliver last time around. Was it just a question of being misunderstood?
Unless you can provide an alternative narrative, what we have is a Labour Party that is like a rabbit in the headlights, frozen in position.
Over to you!
-
You don't get it, do you? The SNP donned the clothes of the left to smash labour in Scotland - which they did. Why on earth would they now want to cosy up to Labour now they've made Labour irrelevant in Scotland?? The SNP is the strongest it's ever been, the last thing they want to do is throw away what they've won!!
-
I fully get the point about the power grab, Glyn.
As I wrote above, what happens when the SNP hit the wall of Tory refusal?
The raft of social policies implemented by the SNP hardly suggest a return to the more right wing position the party held in previous years.
Which illustrates my point....things change, and political opportunities arise from those changes that need to be examined. They may not lead anywhere useful, but then again, they may.
-
Surely the key plank of any attempt to build a Grand Coalition of the Centre-Left would be electoral reform for Westminster? And I can see real problems getting the SNP to buy into that. They are huge beneficiaries of FPTP in Westminster elections. Probably more so than even the Conservative Party in England.
OK, one issue would be that the Scottish Parliament is elected via a form of PR, but like most politicians the leadership of the SNP is perfectly capable of holding different positions on the same fundamental issue. They got lots of practice during the Indy Ref!