[BrutusTheBear]

Wet fish tend to get ignored Dense.

Which is of course why he has been so useless as leader of the opposition.

All this 'having to pay 25 to vote isn't democracy' stuff is utter rubbish. If you join or support (£3) the Labour Party you are paying a membership fee to a political organisation, not a democratic system! It's like paying to join a club -the comparisons made in OMM's quote are nuts - and if you think paying £3 means you should have an influence on how the government is being run now then you're deluded.

If you want to see real threats to a democracy turn on news24 right now...

I reckon our democracy is a sham and that you are Tony Blair's love child, I claim my £3 (actually let's make it £25 + 1 soul).

I find your tone and methods of making arguments bullying.

I'll explain a couple of my points further. I didn't make the Wet fish comparison, but as a leader of the opposition I think its pretty appropriate - as he is useless. Media or no media, in PMQ's (like it or not our established method of weekly holding the govt to account) he has been terrrible - missing important moments time after time - during moments when the Tory govt has been very vulnerable. He has completely failed to lead his parliamentary party. He cannot (we wont know but if he could it wouldnt be an issue) even get the support of 20% of them to be on a leadership election. Most concerningly he has a leader 'rating' of -41% amongst the electorate. He will never be PM in our present FPTP system. Even Owen Jones (I think? the Guardian columist and staunch Corbyn supporter) rather begrudgingly admits this.. I believe one of the main aims of the Labour party is to be in Government - as you cannot really change much in opposition. Deep down, do you really think (outside of the Metropolitan left) there is enough support for JC as PM...? So, what is the point?

All I can conclude is that JC is a vanity project for the left wing of the Labour party.

Of course as citizens of the UK we do not have to pay to vote..

RE: Coups - my point was in reference to the (to me) tedious referral to a 'Blairite coup' - I think what has happened in Turkey overnight provides a better example of what coup is really supposed to mean... like much of the language used by many on the left of the LP and (in particular JC supporters) its inappropriate in my view.

Huh?!

I disagreed with you, stated my opinions as my own and made a joke...  That's not bullying, I haven't coerced you into sharing my beliefs, you are entitled to your opinions and I to mine. 

You have asked me to think deep down, deep down from my heart I believe in social justice, equality and fairness.  Would I sacrifice my beliefs to ensure that a 'Labour' government is elected?  No.  I genuinely think there is an opportunity here for people to remove the 'shadow of business over society' and I think it is possible. 

[TheTwig]

Brutus I fucking love you. Don't give up fighting the good fight, please!

TomTom, and all other JC detractors, I'm curious: Who would you vote for, given the choice? Let's sum up:

Angela Eagle:

Voted to invade iraq + plus fresh airstrikes on Iraq/Syria (that are a vanity project and actually haven't done anything - US and Rus are doing the lions share)
Voted for higher tuition fees
Voted for ID carads
Voted for detention without charge for 90 days (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Happy to support baseless allegations of homophobic abuse against her (she wasn't even at the meeting where this imaginary abuse occurred!)

Voted multiple times against Iraq inquiries
Followed Harriet Harman's cowardice on abstaining on Workfare, as well as the Welfare bill

Owen Smith

An ex big-pharma lobbyist who wants to further privatise the NHS, supports one of the largest transfers of wealth from the public to the private sector known as PFI, supports academies.

He became a big pharma lobbyist straight out of the Labour party, and is now back to look after their interests, not ours.

He is also in the pocket of the arms industy.


In summary: Tell me again how either of these people are more electable than Corbyn?

Hopefully that didn't come across too aggressive, the news cycle is upsetting me. I wish I was old and retired :/

[a dense loner]

Wasn't aggressive at all. I wouldn't vote for any of them.

[tomtom]

Brutus. Generally a smiley is used to indicate a joke or humour after a statement / post.

Twig - who would I vote for? Tom Watson is the answer - butbibsuspect he's keeping his powder dry until the leadership round before the GE. I know very little about the other two - AE was great when she stood in at PmQ's - Owen I know very little about - aside from his in depth interview in today's Observer. Which provides some interesting insight into why he's running against JC. At the moment my vote will go to whoever has the most momentum ( :p ) of the not JC people.

[TheTwig]

Brutus. Generally a smiley is used to indicate a joke or humour after a statement / post.

Twig - who would I vote for? Tom Watson is the answer - butbibsuspect he's keeping his powder dry until the leadership round before the GE. I know very little about the other two - AE was great when she stood in at PmQ's - Owen I know very little about - aside from his in depth interview in today's Observer. Which provides some interesting insight into why he's running against JC. At the moment my vote will go to whoever has the most momentum ( :p ) of the not JC people.

That's the best you can come up with? ABC? (Anyone But Corbyn) - Because that is sooooooooooo 'electable' ! 

[a dense loner]

Eh? No, that's the best Labour can come up with!

[tomtom]

Brutus. Generally a smiley is used to indicate a joke or humour after a statement / post.

Twig - who would I vote for? Tom Watson is the answer - butbibsuspect he's keeping his powder dry until the leadership round before the GE. I know very little about the other two - AE was great when she stood in at PmQ's - Owen I know very little about - aside from his in depth interview in today's Observer. Which provides some interesting insight into why he's running against JC. At the moment my vote will go to whoever has the most momentum ( :p ) of the not JC people.

That's the best you can come up with? ABC? (Anyone But Corbyn) - Because that is sooooooooooo 'electable' ! 

Yup. He's that bad imho.

[BrutusTheBear]

Thanks Twig that means a lot...  The more people that believe the more it becomes possible.

Been to Hartland today it was lovely.

Tom Tom - You took the phrase 'You are Tony Blair's love child..' seriously?  That didn't need a smiley and didn't realise there are rules for when and where I should use smileys.  Is there a wiki explaining?

If you don't like my tone try reading my posts in a higher voice or a funny accent.

You didn't need to reiterate your arguments, I understand completely where your coming from as I said I was almost convinced by the narrative you are sticking to but not quite and I don't agree.  It's OK to not agree.


So explain to me why Tom Watson?  I'm intrigued.  (Not interested in whether you think he is electable or not, consider that argument moot with me, I will vote for someone who represents what I believe in (that for me defines electable)).  What does he stand for? Policies?

[johnx2]

from Newcastle MP, Chi Onwurah:

"I nominated Jeremy Corbyn because I didn’t want the debate to within the party to continue as it had. I was tired of pussyfooting around the fabled centre ground of politics which seemed to be defined as anywhere a tad to the kinder side of Tory policies. I wanted a party whose deep Labour roots fed a passion and commitment to making a better country for all of us.

And when Jeremy was elected with his huge mandate I welcomed the opportunity to change the economic narrative, to grow our party and champion real, radical change. As Shadow Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy I looked forward to working, under Jeremy’s leadership, on subjects I was passionate and indeed knowledgeable about.

But unfortunately that leadership did not emerge. The timing of the no-confidence vote was certainly not of my choosing, I wanted to focus on holding the Government to account and, critically, determine the narrative of Brexit. The Labour Party needed to recognise the hard work of our Remain campaigners, accept the outcome, commit to hold the Government to account for it and demonstrate determination to develop a Brexit that worked for ordinary people.

Unfortunately, what we got from the Leader’s office was an email promoting the two main Labour Leave campaigners, followed by another triumphantly explaining why Jeremy was the man of the moment – the voice of the Leave voter, and then a call for Article 50 to be triggered immediately. That combination of ineptitude and arrogance, added to the experience of the past ten months, determined my vote."

http://labourlist.org/2016/07/we-are-at-war-with-ourselves-but-there-is-nothing-socialist-about-incompetence/

[seankenny]

There are other opportunities to appeal to an electorate than putting on a good show at the farce that is PMQs. Like proposing better policies.

You may want to read this:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-corbyns-economics/

TL;DR - Corbyn, not that bothered about developing policy.

"The leadership wasn’t confusing as much as just silent. There was no policy direction, no messaging, no direction, no co-ordination, no nothing. Shadow ministers appeared to have been left with no direction as to what to do. It was shambolic."

[johnx2]

sorry only did first bit of the first one. (phones plus inept user...)






squares with  many other stories about no one in the shadow cab being told what to do etc 

[Will Hunt]

Can everybody posting anti-Corbyn sentiment please stop. Something about Traitors. Something about Blairite Scum. Something about First Against The Wall When The Glorious Revolution Comes.

[BrutusTheBear]

We know all about why Corbyn is rubbish, heard it every day for the last whatever.  I think pretty much everything bad that has happened in the past, present and future is somehow attributed to his shitness.

Can someone offer me an alternative with a POSITIVE argument for someone else?  Anyone? Something?

[Will Hunt]

A more effective opposition to Tory rule is a fairly massive positive I would have thought.

[i.munro]

A more effective opposition to Tory rule is a fairly massive positive I would have thought.

Worth rendering Labour unelectable for a generation for ....?
It's certainly a poitive for the Tories.

[BrutusTheBear]

Not sure I made myself clear?

Give me a name, any individual that would do a better job than Corbyn, tell me what it is about that person, what do they stand for, what are their values and beliefs?  Why would someone (like me) that believes in social justice, equality and fairness vote for them? 

[Will Hunt]

Owen Smith seems a good bet. Seems to support the values that we each believe in (social justice etc). Looks like he can organise a piss up in a brewery.
I'm sure you're about to kindly tell me exactly why he is a shit from Satan's own arse crack, though.

[i.munro]

So that's worth destroying Labour party for is it ?
To find someone who "looks like he could...."

[tomtom]

So that's worth destroying Labour party for is it ?
To find someone who "looks like he could...."

I think re electing JC would destroy the party...

Tbh someone who looks like they could is a step up from someone who clearly can't...

[slackline]

Tbh someone who looks like they could is a step up from someone who clearly can't...

And one, two years later you find you're back in the same position. 

I agree with Brutus and Twig & Somebody, its good to see someone who doesn't pander to the press and try and get the populist soundbyte vote which invariably means compromising principles, and it is, I think,  something of a self-fulfilling prophecy that is playing out

[36chambers]

Tbh someone who looks like they could is a step up from someone who clearly can't...

And one, two years later you find you're back in the same position. 

I agree with Brutus and Twig & Somebody, its good to see someone who doesn't pander to the press and try and get the populist soundbyte vote which invariably means compromising principles, and it is, I think,  something of a self-fulfilling prophecy that is playing out

I agree with Brutus and Twig & Somebody & Slackline.

I couldn't even tell the difference between Labour and the Tories in the last GE. JC for president!

[slackline]

I think re electing JC would destroy the party...

That would be a bad thing? Split the party, have those who genuinely believe in principles (described well by others in this thread) go in one direction, and those who want to tow the Tory line but under a different name go the other.

[johnx2]

I think re electing JC would destroy the party...

That would be a bad thing? Split the party, have those who genuinely believe in principles (described well by others in this thread) go in one direction, and those who want to tow the Tory line but under a different name go the other.

Firstly, and most importantly, it's "toe the line".

Secondly, try googling "SDP" or "Thatcher" to see what happened the last time Labour split (Tory landslides on a minority of the vote).

Thirdly, the last Labour govt doubled spending on the NHS amongst loads of other good things. They're not the same as tories. The fact we're heading out of the EU should hint at one minor difference.

Fourthly, calling anyone who things Corbyn's a disaster a "red tory" or "blairite" is just slapping label on to avoid listening to what they actually say.

[Will Hunt]

Tbh someone who looks like they could is a step up from someone who clearly can't...

And one, two years later you find you're back in the same position. 

I agree with Brutus and Twig & Somebody, its good to see someone who doesn't pander to the press and try and get the populist soundbyte vote which invariably means compromising principles, and it is, I think,  something of a self-fulfilling prophecy that is playing out

One man's "not pandering to the press" is another man's "not able to communicate the party position effectively", which for the leader of the party is a pretty indefensible thing. The people posting on this thread are generally all the type of people who put some good thought into their voting. Unfortunately, as I think recent events have shown, this is not something that the rest of the population does.

The relationship between the media and the people is not as unidirectional as is being asserted here. The media can influence people's views, but it is also heavily influenced by popular opinion because people, in the main, do not consume news that does not reflect their own viewpoint most of the time.

The opposition could and should seek to manage the way they are portrayed in the press because it is the principle way they can communicate their policies to the electorate. There was a column from the Private Eye doing the rounds recently which presented "What Corbyn says" against "What the media says Corbyn says". It was funny, but to me it highlighted what Corbyn was doing wrong. By refusing to give the press a convenient soundbyte, possibly one that slagged off the government to make it sell, which was then followed up by all the good reasoned argument, he allows them (and indeed compels them) to abbreviate what he says for him, with the inevitable result that the point is lost in translation.

It would be lovely if we lived in a world where everybody read the 1000 words underneath the headline, but we do not. My point is that you need to release material to the press that speaks to the majority who will only find time to glance at the headline before they get back to getting the kids ready for school AND the other people who will look deeper. If you refuse to put out a soundbyte or two then prepare to get fucked.

I think re electing JC would destroy the party...

That would be a bad thing? Split the party, have those who genuinely believe in principles (described well by others in this thread) go in one direction, and those who want to tow the Tory line but under a different name go the other.

Firstly, and most importantly, it's "toe the line".

Secondly, try googling "SDP" or "Thatcher" to see what happened the last time Labour split (Tory landslides on a minority of the vote).

Thirdly, the last Labour govt doubled spending on the NHS amongst loads of other good things. They're not the same as tories. The fact we're heading out of the EU should hint at one minor difference.

Fourthly, calling anyone who things Corbyn's a disaster a "red tory" or "blairite" is just slapping label on to avoid listening to what they actually say.

Indeed. All good points. Particularly the last one. The screeching of "Blairite" is just a way to support the populist (in certain circles) paradigm that everybody who is left of centre is secretly under attack, presumably by a bloke who hasn't been a member of parliament for nearly ten years.

[slackline]

Firstly, and most importantly, it's "toe the line".

And I refer you to the Forum ban / acceptable use policy - please read.

Anything Else?
Don't resort to critcising people's grammar or spelling when arguing/debating - firstly it's rather scraping the insults barrel; secondly people often type to forums quickly whilst at work, etc; and lastly some people may be dyslexic.

Secondly, try googling "SDP" or "Thatcher" to see what happened the last time Labour split (Tory landslides on a minority of the vote).

I'm old enough to (just about) remember those times thank you, and they were ~30 years ago.  Whilst, unfortunately history does have a tendency to repeat itself, I continue to delude myself and hope that it won't and that things can actually improve for the benefit of the majority, not the minority.

But hey, the Tories got back into power again with only 36.9% of the votes cast, which is a reflection of the problem with FPTP (and the crappy two party system mentality it engenders and perpetuates, I think I replied to you on this further back in the thread).

Thirdly, the last Labour govt doubled spending on the NHS amongst loads of other good things. They're not the same as tories. The fact we're heading out of the EU should hint at one minor difference.

It wasn't all roses though was it?  Just last week someone published a long awaited report into the little matter of invading a foreign country.  Then there was the miserable attempt to infringe on civil liberties and introduce ID cards/biometric passports, quite a shambles on that front, I bet May wishes they'd been successful, would have made a good spring board for her current Snoopers Charter which is weasling its way through in the shadow of all the referendum crap and petty in-fighting party leadership bullshit.  I'm in no way saying they are identical, rather that I'm not the only person who thinks "Nu-Labour" or whatever crappy label you wish to apply to it, does not represent the intentions of the founders of the party nor the wills of many ardent and long term supporters.

Fourthly, calling anyone who things Corbyn's a disaster a "red tory" or "blairite" is just slapping label on to avoid listening to what they actually say.

I've listened, I've formed my own opinion thank you, and as I wrote above, its seems to me to be very much a self-fulfilling prophecy.