(for some reason austia seems to retain a lingering affection for fascism)
I'm really disappointed Griffin hasn't the balls to wear a crew-cut.
Had the muppets at UKIP gained another 1000 votes Griffin wouldn't have been elected, I think if another 8,000 in Yorkshire and Humber had voted for any of the main three parties the other BNP arsehole wouldn't have been elected.
Now as much as I disagree with the BNP's policies, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. People gave up for their lives for it and despite the incumbent government trying their utmost to undermine it we should be celebrating that all political views are given a platform. As Sloper says; they can then be subjected to open and rigorous debate. Much better out in the open than allowed to fester and grow through ignorance and repression.
“I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the myth machine into
believing that rape is such a serious crime...Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy it, so rape cannot be such a terrible
physical ordeal. To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence is a serious crime is like suggesting that
forcefeeding a women chocolate cake is a heinous crime. Women would be more inconvenienced by having her
handbag snatched.”
Nick Eriksen fromer BNP candidate
24th August 2005
Quote“I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the myth machine into
believing that rape is such a serious crime...Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy it, so rape cannot be such a terrible
physical ordeal. To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence is a serious crime is like suggesting that
forcefeeding a women chocolate cake is a heinous crime. Women would be more inconvenienced by having her
handbag snatched.”
Nick Eriksen fromer BNP candidate
24th August 2005
No, nobody dares ask the public's opinion after last time.Nigel Farage would win, despite not standing.
Who do I vote for ?? Labour seem to be committing suicide , from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory, the SNP aren't running in London & I fear voting Green is unlikely to work when a third of the country just voted to get rid of anvironmental protectiion aling with human etc...
from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory
from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory
Dismayed that folk seem to still think this.
from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory
Dismayed that folk seem to still think this.
I don't even have a clue what their policies are right now and the media have simply abandoned them/decided they are irrelevant.
from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory
Dismayed that folk seem to still think this.
But I feel the same and I've always been rather Orange...
I don't even have a clue what their policies are right now and the media have simply abandoned them/decided they are irrelevant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the soone r people ditch the two-party mentality the better
the soone r people ditch the two-party mentality the better
It's not a mentality. It's a consequence of our FPTP electoral system. The last time labour split the consequence was Thatcher. Elected by a minority and winning by a landslide.
I don't even have a clue what their policies are right now and the media have simply abandoned them/decided they are irrelevant.
I never took you to be one who relied solely on the media to inform themselves....
- Liberal Democrats Manifesto (http://www.libdems.org.uk/read-the-full-manifesto)
- Green Manifesto (https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/2015-manifesto.html)
- Pirate Party Manifesto (https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/policy)
- Scottish National Party Manifesto (http://www.snp.org/manifesto)
- Scottish Green Manifesto (https://greens.scot/sites/default/files/Manifestos/Scottish%20Greens%20Manifesto_Online.pdf)
- Labour Manifesto (http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto)
- Conservative Manifesto (https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto)
This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.
from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory
Dismayed that folk seem to still think this.
This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.
It feels as though there is nothing but the clash of radical Right with radical Left and no room or interest in compromise and pragmatism.
This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.
That's part of my point. I feel as if there is a malaise across the Liberal political middle ground.
It feels as though there is nothing but the clash of radical Right with radical Left and no room or interest in compromise and pragmatism.
That disparity has been growing since the dawn of socialism and has reached a point where (to me) it looks like the whole system is failing as both extremes argue for an opposite purity that is either entirely geared towards the wealthy or wholeheartedly for the working class.
Witnesses Labours' move (under Blair) to take that middle ground and the implosion now taking place because of it. The rise of the most radical, right wing, PM since Thatcher and the marginalisation of Tory moderates. All against the background of militant new parties promising sexy quick fixes to all of group x,y,z's ills; that drag the "mainstream" parties even further to the extremes in a desperate attempt to maintain membership.
I posed it as a question.This is all true, except that most countries with PR, seem to have fractious, ineffective, coalition government that is bad for the nation in the long run.
Like Germany you mean? Yeah right fuckup that.
from bitter experience voting Lib-Dem is just another way to vote Tory
Dismayed that folk seem to still think this.
Too much PR, too many plebiscites, surely would result in mayhem and faddish swings?
Ditto. To take this view seems to me to involve complete denial of the realistic alternatives. Had the coalition continued I wonder if we'd even have had this current debacle?
Ditto. To take this view seems to me to involve complete denial of the realistic alternatives. Had the coalition continued I wonder if we'd even have had this current debacle?
Had the lib-dems gone into coalition with labour, as most of their voters expected, then we certainly wouldn't.
Instead to quote from Bonjoy's link above : "In the general election of 2010, voters blindsided pollsters and pundits alike by flocking to the Liberal Democratic party, until then a fringe party. That was an obvious demand for change, and if the Lib-Dems had stuck to their guns, it might have resulted in the eclipse of the Labour party within a few more years, but the Lib-Dems chose instead to cash in their ideals and form a coalition with the Tories. In the 2015 general election, as a direct result, the Lib-Dems were flung back out onto the fringes. "
No idea where labour will go, I think the reality is they have split but are fighting over who gets labour and who makes the new party.Still here(in).
Coalitions are the norm in many countries. The last one seemed to work fine, I certainly preferred it to this government.
The referendum was not binding. If it had been, it would have required a higher threshold than 1.9%. All the leave tories have walked away. May is saying brexit means brexit because it is the sensible thing to do now; they are still in a stand-off with Europe over what deal they might get. Both sides know this; we say we're going, they say go then. But we're still here aren't we?
Turnout was low in rainy London but overwhelmingly remain. Dry in the north, high turnout, more leave voters.
That's probably the first right thing you've said on this thread omm :P
I think it depends on the sort of decision being made. I was thinking of decisions where there are two proposed credible solutions, either of which might work, but a fudge of the two will almost certainly produce a poor outcome. Like do we have curry for tea, or pizza?
I think it depends on the sort of decision being made. I was thinking of decisions where there are two proposed credible solutions, either of which might work, but a fudge of the two will almost certainly produce a poor outcome. Like do we have curry for tea, or pizza?
Curried pizza sounds great.
Could one person not have pizza and the other curry? Bit more work but no one ever said compromises were easier.
(Not read the blog post yet, but had a good night climbing).
Ditto. To take this view seems to me to involve complete denial of the realistic alternatives. Had the coalition continued I wonder if we'd even have had this current debacle?
Had the lib-dems gone into coalition with labour, as most of their voters expected, then we certainly wouldn't.
The collapse in support for the Lib Dems was due to millions of people refusing to apply a bit of thought to the situation and not understanding anything about politics. And that's got us to where we are now.
Amazing that with the evidence of 5 years of coalition and 1 year of the Tories left to their own devices people are still trying to blame the Lib Dems for anything FFS.
In addition to agreeing with what JB said in his reply to this, you are conveniently forgetting that Brown basically vetoed the idea of a coalition with the Lib Dems at birth.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/a-map-of-the-countries-boris-johnson-has-offended--W1zaTLC63rW
Just watched Boris on channel 4 news, being booed by the (I think) staff of the French embassy.I'd not seen that, thanks, at least he's not PM, I have no idea why he's been given a cabinet post - unless there was a pre leadership deal, with the understanding that he'd drop out of the race for a cabinet position.
Great stuff. So proud. The arsehole couldn't even string a sentence together.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.
Andrea Loathesome as Env Minister is a bad thing....
Andrea Loathesome as Env Minister is a bad thing....
An environment minister who supports fracking. :-\
Matt, that's a nice funny post but as you and I know, it's bollocks.Your specific points aren't all correct. Maybe you and OMM know something I don't know but it's not all bollocks.
On a couple of specific points.
No one has ever voted for a PM, it's not how are system works.
If he voted for JC as his MP, he didn't have to pay last time and won't have to pay at the next GE. If he voted for JC in the last leadership election he'll still be a member and won't have to pay to vote this time.
On the unelectable front, he was overwhelmingly electable within his party, but might still be unelectable in a GE, we might never know?
Democracy relies on some people not getting what they want. We had the option of changing our system to something more representative and it turns out no one actually cared so we've got what we've got.
As much as I wanted to stay in the EU and am not exactly keen on May and the new cabinet, it's our system, it's what more people wanted than not so it's what we've got.
If you happened to vote for JC as your MP or indeed in the leadership contest as an affiliated supporter you would have paid £3 at the time.
Of course it's free to vote for your chosen twat/candidate in the GE (even if it makes you soulless), what we are referring is the cost of voting in party based election within the Labour Party. If you want to have a pop in this leadership 'contest', you have a 48hr window, it'll cost you £25 to register as an affiliated supporter and your soul. (oh no you've already used it so maybe you can borrow one?)If you happened to vote for JC as your MP or indeed in the leadership contest as an affiliated supporter you would have paid £3 at the time.Hang about. I voted for that twat in the GE last time and the time before that ... ad infinitum ... and it didn't cost me £3. My soul maybe, but not three quid.
Wtf! £25 a vote! I'd be wanting some Australian parties over here so I could at least get a burger out of them!Indeed.. Democracy. Obviously trying to price out the riff raff.
On a couple of specific points.
No one has ever voted for a PM, it's not how are system works.
Wet fish tend to get ignored Dense.
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 was just passing on a joke a mate had made.I liked it.
Ho hum.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.
I was just passing on a joke a mate had made.
Ho hum.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense.
Missed the context of one of omm' posts?
But then again you didn't like JC til a few weeks ago.
Missed the context of one of omm' posts?(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160716/6a685d29e1f8e91ec911e2a5b0c55e1f.jpg)
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).
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.
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.
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' ! :wall:
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.
A more effective opposition to Tory rule is a fairly massive positive I would have thought.
So that's worth destroying Labour party for is it ?
To find someone who "looks like he could...."
Tbh someone who looks like they could is a step up from someone who clearly can't...
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. :shrug:
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 think re electing JC would destroy the party...
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.
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. :shrug:
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 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.
Firstly, and most importantly, it's "toe the line".
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).
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.
unfortunately history does have a tendency to repeat itself
Firstly, and most importantly, it's "toe the line".
And I refer you to the Forum ban / acceptable use policy - please read. (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,3145.msg39977.html#msg39977)QuoteAnything 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.
Certainly does, and unfortunately the left has a fine pedigree of spending so much time navel-gazing and arguing over just what type of left wing government they want that they take their eyes of the efficient machine of the enemy.
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 think he might be worse than a shit from Satan's own arse crack! Seems not to support the values we believe in.. Didn't vote against cuts to Disability benefits, believes in NHS privatisation, worked for Pfizer as a lobbyist, voted for Iraq war.. To me he appears to be careerist vulture and nothing else. Not gonna get my backing. Willing to be convinced but you'll have to do a lot of convincing. Can't seem to find evidence of him doing anything particularly selfless or commendable.
I'm sure you're about to kindly tell me exactly why he is a shit from Satan's own arse crack, though.
Why do you need to be swayed? Vote for him if you think he's good. It's just that most of the labour supporters don't agree with you, let alone his own party. So they won't be voting for him. You seem, along with a few others, to be making a very strange stand. A leader who a quarter of the party, generous I know, want as leader is no leader.
It's just that most of the labour supporters don't agree with you? Do you have even slight hint of some polls, or statistics showing this? He has a huge mandate within the labour party MEMBERS. As in, people who have registered to support the party, people engaged in politics who support the labour movement. They want him.
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 think he might be worse than a shit from Satan's own arse crack! Seems not to support the values we believe in.. Didn't vote against cuts to Disability benefits, believes in NHS privatisation, worked for Pfizer as a lobbyist, voted for Iraq war.. To me he appears to be careerist vulture and nothing else. Not gonna get my backing. Willing to be convinced but you'll have to do a lot of convincing. Can't seem to find evidence of him doing anything particularly selfless or commendable.
I'm sure you're about to kindly tell me exactly why he is a shit from Satan's own arse crack, though.
Anything on Tom Watson Tom Tom?
Ah the grey area that is now registered members. I couldn't care less what you do with him. Just get on with it.
It's not really media bias when of all the times I've seen him on TV, I've always thought what a shit weasel. The TV hasn't put that idea in my head, watching him squirm while unable to make speeches has done that. I pay a plumber to do my plumbing, I expect him to bring all the necessary tools with him.
I know all this since my iq is higher than 69
You'll be waiting a while, they look like a shower of shit. I haven't changed my mind on what I posted earlier, but of those three I'd vote JC. All available options are fucked up. Unless something wildcard happens, all conceivable outcomes from here look like leading to a long time in the wilderness. Feels like the 80s again. Basically of the three available crap options for leader, none of whom I think could win the next election, I'd choose the one who doesn't vote for wars.
Given how likely Corbyn is to be re-elected by a large proportion of the members, the constituencies are really going to have to bite the bullet and have a mass deselection of the PLP as it stands and select some candidates that can at least not actively oppose him.
Given how likely Corbyn is to be re-elected by a large proportion of the members, the constituencies are really going to have to bite the bullet and have a mass deselection of the PLP as it stands and select some candidates that can at least not actively oppose him.
Will he? Is he popular with Labour members? Of the people I know, the ones who support JC are the metropolitan left who are the £3 supporters, a lot of whom I guess can't vote in this election. The actual Labour members (i.e. the guys in my office, paid up labour members, would vote for anything with a red rosette etc) think he's a shite leader and want him out. I realise this isn't exactly a great sample but anything else is apparently anti-Corbyn media spin or Corbynistas preaching to the converted.
Will he? Is he popular with Labour members?...
...It'd be fascinating if it didn't mean a Tory government without opposition for god knows how long......
Out of interest, which of his views do you consider fringe?
Corbyn. as somebody with fringe views, belongs on the back benches, where he can influence the course of the party without sinking the ship.
What strikes me as the madness is the fact that Corbyn stood in parliament as leader of the Labour party and voted against Labour party policy.
This then makes the PLP that don't support him the traitors to the party, despite voting along the lines set, democratically, by the party.... :tumble:
They're a member of the Party of European Socialists for fucks sake, and the guy they currently want to be leader is probably a bigger fucking capitalist than Thatcher.[\quote]
When you find yourself typing things like this it's time time to consider that you might just be wrong? (Christ knows I have.) I read that as you don't like a bad taste, you do like hope, and the idea of a socialist world. To be achieved by purging the labour party of people who might get it into government. To do things like double spending on the NHS.
What you'll get is proper Tories forever. But at least you'll feel good about yourself.
QuoteThey're a member of the Party of European Socialists for fucks sake, and the guy they currently want to be leader is probably a bigger fucking capitalist than Thatcher. [\quote]
When you find yourself typing things like this it's time time to consider that you might just be wrong? (Christ knows I have.) I read that as you don't like a bad taste, you do like hope, and the idea of a socialist world. To be achieved by purging the labour party of people who might get it into government. To do things like double spending on the NHS.
What you'll get is proper Tories forever. But at least you'll feel good about yourself.
Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.
Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.
QuoteThey're a member of the Party of European Socialists for fucks sake, and the guy they currently want to be leader is probably a bigger fucking capitalist than Thatcher. [\quote]
When you find yourself typing things like this it's time time to consider that you might just be wrong? (Christ knows I have.) I read that as you don't like a bad taste, you do like hope, and the idea of a socialist world. To be achieved by purging the labour party of people who might get it into government. To do things like double spending on the NHS.
What you'll get is proper Tories forever. But at least you'll feel good about yourself.
Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.
Perhaps you genuinely think anyone who sees practical good in promoting socialism is a homeless raving maniac idealist with no sense of pragmatism. Perhaps.How do you get that from what I wrote?
Principles not power John........ Who cares if you actually do any good, as long as your principled. Never compromise.
I'm going to hazard a guess that there is a degree of sarcasm in that....
Look at the shit the Lib Dems did when they compromised theirprinciplesmanifesto pledges in order to try and effect a radical change to the political system. Very much a case of...
Damned if you do [stick to your principles], and damned if you don't [even if its to try and make a huge change].
Look at the shit the Lib Dems did when they compromised theirprinciplesmanifesto pledges in order to try and effect a radical change to the political system. Very much a case of...
Damned if you do [stick to your principles], and damned if you don't [even if its to try and make a huge change].
I think the Lib Dems did the right thing. They were naive going into the coalition and paid the price but I prefer the coalition government to that which we have now.
I do think, as some have said, that Labour needs a much stronger leader. But who would that be? There don't seem to be any credible alternatives. I look forward to corbyn winning and mandatory re-selection of MPs. Yes, this might confine labour to the doldrums for a while, but at the far end there might be some hope that the new raft of MPs might produce a few credible alternative leaders.
Perhaps you interpreted my comment that way because you're projecting your own self narrative. Perhaps you genuinely think anyone who sees practical good in promoting socialism is a homeless raving maniac idealist with no sense of pragmatism. Perhaps.
[/quote]
- No - his support outside his own narrow constituency is small
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/jeremy-corbyn-support-rises-among-party-members/
- No - Labour is a broad church and his isn't
- No - See above
- Maybe - But I still want an effective opposition and Smith looks a lot more like it than Jesus
So do I, but many, including some here on UKB (e.g. tomtom ;) ) have written that they can not forgive them for reneging on their pledges such as not to raise tuition fees.
This is a shame because it fails to acknowledge they weren't the majority, that reforming the electoral system was also one of their manifesto pledges, and that they took a gamble to effect a real and dramatic change to our political system and in doing so had to make compromises on other aspects.
No idea, probably not. They have been winning by-elections and the London mayor, but how can we tell. Polls (ironic, since I just posted one) don't seem to be very accurate these days.
No idea, probably not. They have been winning by-elections and the London mayor, but how can we tell. Polls (ironic, since I just posted one) don't seem to be very accurate these days.
But is he popular with the Labour electorate who aren't party members? Those people who turned to UKIP, who voted out, who feel they don't have a voice, the working class who've been left behind by New Labour and the Tories?
(Genuine question, I don't know)
Do we really expect every politician to not have any skeletons in their closets? What about you lot? Are you all perfect people who have never done anything you're not proud of? Have you ever taken a flight to go on holiday to Kalymnos or wherever? Well thanks very much you complete fucking cum-filled cunt, you've contributed to global warming. Have you ever drunk bottled water? Thanks for wasting the planet's precious resources you fucking parasite. Have you ever associated with anybody, a family member or work colleage perhaps, whose views you didn't agree with, who might be slightly right-wing/homophobic/racist, but who you continue to be polite and friendly with because you know you can't change them and it's necessary to have an easy relationship with them? Die, you cunt. Just fucking do us all a favour and die.
Do we really expect every politician to not have any skeletons in their closets? What about you lot? Are you all perfect people who have never done anything you're not proud of? Have you ever taken a flight to go on holiday to Kalymnos or wherever? Well thanks very much you complete fucking cum-filled cunt, you've contributed to global warming. Have you ever drunk bottled water? Thanks for wasting the planet's precious resources you fucking parasite. Have you ever associated with anybody, a family member or work colleage perhaps, whose views you didn't agree with, who might be slightly right-wing/homophobic/racist, but who you continue to be polite and friendly with because you know you can't change them and it's necessary to have an easy relationship with them? Die, you cunt. Just fucking do us all a favour and die.
is the warm weather, and the awful grit connies, getting to you too?
Not a personal dig at yourself tomtom, just that you were the one person I could recall having written that.
But to write a party off because someone didn't have the grace to apologise/say sorry is in my view a bit extreme.
Labour won a landslide in 1997 with PR in the manifesto and then chickened out.+1 for PR*
So we all hate FPTP. How do we get PR - so we can have multiple flavours of leftie? (And I might vote Green or whatever, albeit the eventual government would end up a similar coalition compromise as it's euro counterparts which is why PR is unpopular with many on the left. But not me?)
At risk of saying you can't get there from here, it's highly unlikely to happen in a FPTP system with an eternally split opposition.
I can see Plaid Cymru and Scot Nats not standing against each other but that's about it.
Splitting labour keeps Tories in. Imperfect broad church labour is preferable to Tories, as well as being the only route to or if elected in coalition. So don't split the party. corbyn can't lead a united party (demonstrably, never mind 'shoulds'), so return him to the back benches or give him some figurehead role. The end.
Splitting labour keeps Tories in. Imperfect broad church labour is preferable to Tories, as well as being the only route to or if elected in coalition. So don't split the party. corbyn can't lead a united party (demonstrably, never mind 'shoulds'), so return him to the back benches or give him some figurehead role. The end.I was going to contribute some more to this thread but it looks like you've got it all sown up. ::)
The Labour Party does not belong to the Unions, the Members or the affiliates, they are just custodians for a movement who's sole purpose is to make better the lives of the poor, disposed etc. The most important people probably barely know who Jeremy Corbyn is and it makes no odds to them whether the affiliate fee is £3 or £25 as they won't be joining regardless, however it is them that should be shaping the Labour Party as they need a party in power (or at least a strong opposition) far more than the Labour Party needs unwavering ideals. When Kier Hardy started the Labour Party I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking 'If I don't get exactly what I want then fuck it, I'll sit here with my ideals and hope I get elected anyway' and nor should today's Labour Party. To be in any way effective the Labour Party needs to get elected by whatever means possible and to enact whatever policies it practically can. Common sense tells us this will be a watered down version of the ideal but it needs to engage in realpolitik. If people want to posture like a bunch of sixth former socialists then they should fuck off to the SWP, it's what it was invented for isn't it?
It doesn't matter that JC is a good and principled man, there are fucking millions of them, what we need is someone credible. This is the most unprincipled, amoral govt. we've had since the 19th century and JC has not landed a glove on them. It's no good whinging on about the media being unfair etc., it was ever thus from Foot's donkey jacket through the Welsh Windbag and on to Ed's bacon sandwich, once a narrative has been created around someone it's impossible to reverse and JC has long since passed that point, he doesn't seem credible so it's time for someone else to try. It might not be successful but we won't get anywhere with JC. Much as we might wish it otherwise politics is all about personality and charisma (q.v. the rise of Donald Trump, and the Brexit campaign) and JC has neither. I'm not saying anyone else does either but we are right up a creek and Owen Smith is the only vaguely paddle shaped thing around.
Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25. :chair:
Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25. :chair:
Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25. :chair:
Ha! That's cheered me up.....
Can you believe that i spunked 25 quid away today so that I can vote for the other guy?Christ Will, why didn't you say so. You could have saved us both £25. :chair:
Well whoever wins is going to have a good fighting fund at least.
The Labour Party does not belong to the Unions, the Members or the affiliates, they are just custodians for a movement who's sole purpose is to make better the lives of the poor, disposed etc. The most important people probably barely know who Jeremy Corbyn is and it makes no odds to them whether the affiliate fee is £3 or £25 as they won't be joining regardless, however it is them that should be shaping the Labour Party as they need a party in power (or at least a strong opposition) far more than the Labour Party needs unwavering ideals. When Kier Hardy started the Labour Party I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking 'If I don't get exactly what I want then fuck it, I'll sit here with my ideals and hope I get elected anyway' and nor should today's Labour Party. To be in any way effective the Labour Party needs to get elected by whatever means possible and to enact whatever policies it practically can. Common sense tells us this will be a watered down version of the ideal but it needs to engage in realpolitik. If people want to posture like a bunch of sixth former socialists then they should fuck off to the SWP, it's what it was invented for isn't it?
It doesn't matter that JC is a good and principled man, there are fucking millions of them, what we need is someone credible. This is the most unprincipled, amoral govt. we've had since the 19th century and JC has not landed a glove on them. It's no good whinging on about the media being unfair etc., it was ever thus from Foot's donkey jacket through the Welsh Windbag and on to Ed's bacon sandwich, once a narrative has been created around someone it's impossible to reverse and JC has long since passed that point, he doesn't seem credible so it's time for someone else to try. It might not be successful but we won't get anywhere with JC. Much as we might wish it otherwise politics is all about personality and charisma (q.v. the rise of Donald Trump, and the Brexit campaign) and JC has neither. I'm not saying anyone else does either but we are right up a creek and Owen Smith is the only vaguely paddle shaped thing around.
+1 to all that.
I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.
I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.
Shit the bed, 3 - he's got a lot more faults than that. Still, doesn't mean there are better options at the present moment. Unless you really think Owen "Ideological Chameleon" Smith is really "The Man"...
I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.
Shit the bed, 3 - he's got a lot more faults than that. Still, doesn't mean there are better options at the present moment. Unless you really think Owen "Ideological Chameleon" Smith is really "The Man"...
He doesn't have to be "The Man". He merely has to be "The Man that doesn't lead the Labour Party to utter electoral ruin and hand the Tories a majority of 95". Also perhaps "The Man that ensures MPs aren't threatened with deselection for the crime of not supporting the leader, so they can get on and maybe formulate some policies and try to win over the electorate by looking vaguely competent." Being "The Man that can actually field a shadow cabinet" would also help.
When Kier Hardy started the Labour Party I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking 'If I don't get exactly what I want then fuck it, I'll sit here with my ideals and hope I get elected anyway' and nor should today's Labour Party. To be in any way effective the Labour Party needs to get elected by whatever means possible and to enact whatever policies it practically can.
And P.S. what meant by "Ideological Chameleon" is that he is portraying himself as one thing to try and win the leadership election, when his voting record and past history appear to point in a different direction. pointless link that will probably get ripped to pieces for some reason or another (http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/07/what-does-owen-smith-believe/)
I challenged somebody on Facebook to prove that they did not view JC as a deity by listing three of his faults. We all have faults don't we? I'd be interested to see what those backing him on this thread cite as his three most significant flaw. If people reply then I'll happily cut and paste what the response was on Facebook since it is guaranteed to give us all a laugh.
Shit the bed, 3 - he's got a lot more faults than that. Still, doesn't mean there are better options at the present moment. Unless you really think Owen "Ideological Chameleon" Smith is really "The Man"...
He doesn't have to be "The Man". He merely has to be "The Man that doesn't lead the Labour Party to utter electoral ruin and hand the Tories a majority of 95". Also perhaps "The Man that ensures MPs aren't threatened with deselection for the crime of not supporting the leader, so they can get on and maybe formulate some policies and try to win over the electorate by looking vaguely competent." Being "The Man that can actually field a shadow cabinet" would also help.
But what if he's the man that continues the drift of the party towards the party they're trying to oppose? Who does this help?
I can't speak for whoever made the ideological chameleon comment, but to me that clearly is a pop at popularism i.e. being a weathervane, not a signpost. We have seen where that leads - Trump, Brexit.
To take us to the other side of the pond -
I can't speak for whoever made the ideological chameleon comment, but to me that clearly is a pop at popularism i.e. being a weathervane, not a signpost. We have seen where that leads - Trump, Brexit.
There's only one problem with this analysis. Look at all the negative things about Trump: One of course is Boris Johnson. And the other... well I'll leave you to have a guess who that might be.
Labour won a landslide in 1997 with PR in the manifesto and then chickened out.+1 for PR*
I'm hoping the situation with Scotland might have some impact here in one of a few possible ways. One would be for labour to decide they'd like to have some representation north of the border.
*I despise the current hegemony of representative democracy. But we can at least try to improve it.
I've kept away from this thread, as I'm sure many other have. My 2p on the labour leadership.Love the fact that you refer to his decisions as 'compromises'. :lol:
Many would argue that Smith's compromises - like abstaining on the welfare reform bill vote, which was explicitly about trying to look financially responsible to appeal to the electorate and was completely contrary to what the Labour party are supposed to represent - are compromises too far. I'd agree with them.
Some more of my views...I also put this on Facebook the other day.
I have always voted Labour and even modestly donated to the party at the last election. I strongly believe Jeremy Corbyn must be replaced as leader before the next election. If he isn't, then I could not vote for the party. Here's why.
1) Policies. I've written this paragraph first because for many people these will be the main, or even only reason on which to determine their choice in a forthcoming Labour leadership election. In fact for me there are other more important reasons in this particular case - see (2/, (3) and (4) below. On the pure policy front, I am personally strongly opposed to unilateral nuclear disarmament, but otherwise I think most of his individual policies are good ideas. A problem for me here is that I just think he wants to do too much at once for the general public to 'bite', especially once the right wing Press get their teeth into it. A National Investment Bank, National Education Service, nationalisation of the railways (and energy companies?), much higher minimum wage and a complete turnaround of many aspects of foreign policy - some of these I think are great individual ideas, but people will be nervous about voting for so much change all at once at a General Election (and will be scared off by the 'papers). It needs to be done more gradually, focusing on a much smaller number of these major changes, with lots of detail behind them so that they can be defended against those who would portray them as idealistic, backward or extreme. [It's also very questionable whether a Government and their civil service would be capable of implementing this level of change in 5 years anyway, especially in parallel with sorting out the situation with the EU.] Hopefully an alternative leadership candidate could keep some of the Corbyn policies that have had the most positive feedback, but detail them up to ensure they are workable and then bring other major changes forward once the first few have had some success.
2) Inability to compromise and put the country before himself. Any leader of any organisation needs to be able to show pragmatism and to compromise on his/her principles occasionally for the good of the organisation (in this case, the country). Corbyn can't do this because his principles are too strong - they appear more important to him than the actual results of his actions. One example is stating outright that he would never use the nuclear deterrent (note: the whole point in it is that a potential aggressor never knows for sure; there was simply no need for him to answer this question, and there is nothing to be gained by doing so.) Another example is his unwillingness to share a platform with the main 'Remain' campaign in the EU referendum. Many other politicians bit the bullet and talked together with their usual opposition to try to achieve the outcome they all felt was right for the country. But the main Labour party under Corbyn couldn't. On occasions he seemed more interested in highlighting how different he was from Cameron. At best, what he did was inadvertently dilute the 'Remain' message by confusing the electorate with a different set of reasons to stay, and then not standing firmly enough behind them. (I'm going to assume positive intent here and believe that he did in fact want to stay in the EU, and wasn't deliberately doing a half-job.)
I strongly believe that whatever your position on Trident or on the EU, the above examples demonstrate an inability to understand the true consequence of his actions, or to direct them towards the best end outcome. He is too driven to follow the principles he has held for many years without compromise, and without thinking enough about the outcome.
3) Communication (in)competence. He has said too many things in public that could be interpreted the wrong way, and communicated too weakly on important subjects, for it to be bad luck - he clearly lacks the ability to think on the spot and get things reliably right. The most recent example of this was comparing the Israeli Government to 'those various self-styled islamic states or organisations', widely interpreted to mean IS. Whether he meant it or not, his team were left to pick up the pieces, with Jewish leaders publicly condemning him. And this was all at an event supposed to address accusations (hopefully unfounded) of anti-semitism. The country simply cannot afford to have a Prime Minister prone to this sort of gaffe. It would be a disaster waiting happen (in the modern world of social media on top of the traditional TV and Papers, maybe even more so.) So if you want to have a Labour Government, he can't be the Labour leader either. [To be clear, I do not mean that we need another PM who is more concerned with their image than anything else - they just need to be competent in the role.]
4) Practicalities of MP support. The simple fact is that even if party members vote to keep him now, he has too little support amongst his MPs to actually lead a credible opposition. After the last set of resignations, I understand he had too few people left to even form a full shadow cabinet. That implies that Labour are no longer a realistic prospective party of Government, and that we are moving towards a one-party state, which we must avoid. Notwithstanding that, he will also be unable to command his party well enough to form a strong opposition block to the Tories when voting in Parliament on any remotely controversial or difficult issues (even with SNP support, which Labour must avoid relying on). Therefore, now that so many of his own MPs have declared other allegiances, he simply can't lead the party, and in my view has to go, even if you discount my other points above. And when people talk about his democratic mandate from the last Labour leadership election, remember that those MPs have all been voted for, despite an overall weak Labour performance, by their local voters of all types in the last General Election. That is the mandate that is really most important.
Overall I think Corbyn should be commended for his strong principles, most of which are genuinely about creating a more equal world, his willingness to be 'different' and his ability to raise passionate support amongst his admirers. But ultimately for the reasons above I think he is only suited to being a vocal back-bench MP or to leading a protest group, not a party of Government. For the sake of the UK, Labour must make itself a realistic party of Government again.
If you switched out, en masse, the vast majority of the current crop of MPs, especially in "safe seats"
As their reasons for no confidence have been systematically debunked, the PLP just seem to invent new ones. It’s this inconsistency, and their urgency, which suggests they have an agenda beyond what they’re saying publicly.
To me, him being too big a threat to the establishment and the ‘special relationship’ should he win, rings much truer than anything the PLP have come out with so far.
As their reasons for no confidence have been systematically debunked, the PLP just seem to invent new ones. It’s this inconsistency, and their urgency, which suggests they have an agenda beyond what they’re saying publicly.
To me, him being too big a threat to the establishment and the ‘special relationship’ should he win, rings much truer than anything the PLP have come out with so far.
You don’t think it’s mostly for the simpler reason that they see how the media works in this country and they know how little most voters are willing to look beyond what they are told by it - as such they don’t believe JC can win? This is not a reason that can be easily/honestly laid out, given you're telling people they are thick, lazy and manipulated and trying to use the very means of that manipulation as your voice.
And so Twitter and FB can be manipulated - actually manipulated more than newspapers as you have far more control over where your news/ads go to... Also - the old school media (BBC, itv, and newspapers) are behoven to tell both sides of the story. And despite he bias - there is a professionalism and a requirement to check out the accuracy of reports. The newer digital media are partly behind the new post factual situation - where anyone can make up or selectively choose parts of their story without being held to account. Look at the Canary for example - or the huff - or most of the blog post pages posted up here and in other places. No accountability, no responsibility... Plus by select what you want to hear (which is harder wig the BBC for example) you reinforce the echo chamber effect outlined above.
If the media are 'against' you - tough shit - you still have to deal with them. Sure you can see a utopian future where there is no media bias - but no matter what form of reporting there is then you've got to deal with it. You have to get on today in the morning, then 5 live, then this morning, then breakfast etc... Dishing out the soundbites, smiling to the camera, being nice and welcoming... THATS THE GAME - you've got to play it. Talking to a room of trade union members, or your close supporters, stuck out on YouTube doesn't have the same effect. It might in the future - but as the referendum showed - those above 60 nearly all vote - and have a big influence... You don't see grandma snapchatting very often...
Anyway - even if JC hates all this shit he should be getting someone from his junta to do it for him - organise some reponses, some soundbites, some shadow ministerial statements. But we've had next to nothing over the last year - despite all the gaping opportunities to do so.
The newer digital media are partly behind the new post factual situation - where anyone can make up or selectively choose parts of their story without being held to account. Look at the Canary for example - or the huff - or most of the blog post pages posted up here and in other places. No accountability, no responsibility...
Anyway - even if JC hates all this shit he should be getting someone from his junta to do it for him - organise some reponses, some soundbites, some shadow ministerial statements. But we've had next to nothing over the last year - despite all the gaping opportunities to do so.
Trump is indeed a narcisisstic policy void who just seems to say what a subset of crazy Americans want to hear. Johnson has an opinion for every day of the week and is happy to pick and choose from them to suit his own ends. They are populists in the "demagogue" sense of the word. They talk up the sense that "ordinary folk" are being oppressed by "the elite" and then they offer solutions that I think a lot of people feel are based on either lies or right wing fanaticism and appeals to people's baser instincts.
By the textbook I suppose Corbyn is indeed a populist in that he makes the same argument but in contrast offers solutions that are socialist but rational, based on proper policy positions which are aimed at decreasing inequality and seem popular with the public (renationalising railways for eg), and which he has been historically very consistent in advocating. But he isn't a demagogue. I guess the point I'm making is that I can't imagine Corbyn arguing for say recently arrived EU citizens to be forced to leave or have reduced rights even if the public at large wanted it. I can see Johnson doing that, and Trump if he was in UK. Perhaps my fault for not being clearer by using populist instead of demagogue. I don't see how anyone can argue Corbyn is a demagogue! Although you did try!
Taking your comparisons:
the leader without a firm grip on policy - are you seriously arguing Corbyn is as policy light as Trump???
the desire to quash any and all internal opposition - evidence? Labour are having a leadership election due to internal opposition, which Corbyn welcomed. I doubt Erdogan will be taking tips from Corbyn on quashing dissent.
the inability to be a team player - OK from what you hear there may be an element of truth to this. However the question then is is Owen Smith more so? And is that what the PLP want? A lot seemed happy with Blair and he took us into a war pretty much on his own decision!
the chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.
and the junk science - ???
and the aggressive followers - still yet to backed up with strong evidence but yes I'm sure a few are fanatical. Hardly riots at Trump rallies, or a phalnx of blackshirts though is it?
and the Putin loving and EU-hating - again not much evidence for the first. The second is a bit strong, he did say he was 7/10 for the EU which although not president of the EU fan-club is hardly hating it.
hi Guy - wasn't aimed at you or anyone :) just a general media (it's not just about the bias) rant :)
the chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.
Really? The MPs who've been coming out of the woodwork to say how they tried to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet but couldn't, are they some kind of dumb rabble who can't do their job properly? No, they are not. They are dedicated professionals trying to work as a solid, responsible opposition. They know what the job entails and they're trying to do it to the best of the ability.
the chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.
Really? The MPs who've been coming out of the woodwork to say how they tried to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet but couldn't, are they some kind of dumb rabble who can't do their job properly? No, they are not. They are dedicated professionals trying to work as a solid, responsible opposition. They know what the job entails and they're trying to do it to the best of the ability.
The "coming out of the woodwork" bit is my problem. If this is genuinely the case why didn't they say that in the first place rather than this "unelectable" bollocks people might have been more sympathetic, I certainly would - now it just looks like somebody is lying and I don't know who.
Then why are we getting two stories ? Firstly he's unelectable - now unworkable with.
I can see some genuinely believe the first - but I'd say that after 2 lost GEs on a r-wing ticket it's time to try something else.
Then why are we getting two stories ? Firstly he's unelectable - now unworkable with.
I can see some genuinely believe the first - but I'd say that after 2 lost GEs on a r-wing ticket it's time to try something else.
By right I meanbroadly continuing the nu-Labour tactic of being slightlly less grim than the Tories and sneaking the good stuff innot right at all.
Only because of how far R the Tories have gone into tin-foil hat territory could any of that be considered L-wing.
... sneaking the good stuff in.
Call it centre-left or centre-right whatevs my point is about electoral tactics.
I suspect many in the PLP would shy away from say Rail Nationalisation or ditching Trident as making them "unelectable" and yet both seem to be both widely popular and sensible.
Call it centre-left or centre-right whatevs my point is about electoral tactics.
I suspect many in the PLP would shy away from say Rail Nationalisation or ditching Trident as making them "unelectable" and yet both seem to be both widely popular and sensible.
If that sort of thinking is what is motivating the Corbyn coup then he's getting my vote
@seankenny Castro Lite :D
Because no one noticed the vast reduction in pensioner poverty, or the introduction of tax credits, or a functioning NHS or the massive rebuilding of schools and refurbishment of council houses.
Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know. The argument here is about how best to avoid more of this and I would suggest that triangulation and variants therrof have been shown not to work. In addition the one clear message I can get from reacent elections/referenda is that there's a big appetite for change - any change seemingly.
Meanwhile, Len (elected on a 15% turnout) McLuskey now thinks Mi5 are behind a Corbyn smear campaign
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/intelligence-services-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn
Where's that tin hat picture... :D
Meanwhile, Len (elected on a 15% turnout) McLuskey now thinks Mi5 are behind a Corbyn smear campaign
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/intelligence-services-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn
Where's that tin hat picture... :D
Because no one noticed the vast reduction in pensioner poverty, or the introduction of tax credits, or a functioning NHS or the massive rebuilding of schools and refurbishment of council houses.
Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know. The argument here is about how best to avoid more of this and I would suggest that triangulation and variants therrof have been shown not to work. In addition the one clear message I can get from reacent elections/referenda is that there's a big appetite for change - any change seemingly.
Indeed, I don't see Corbyn as the exact same type of populist demagogue as Trump, but I see him in very much the same mould. I see him as a kind of left wing populist who would, if given half the chance, quite happily drift into authoritarianism for the good of the cause. He's also exactly the kind of politician that would propose damaging policies if he thought they'd go down well with his constituents. A sort of mix of English puritan and Diet Castro, big on unaffordable subsidies and long speeches and wielding power by coterie.
Not at all, but it's clear that attempts to develop and communciate policy have been virtually moribund. At least that's according to sympathetic people involved in the process, like Richard Murphy:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-corbyns-economics/
Danny Blanchflower has come out and said the same thing. And the sensible, rational economic policy is supposed to be the jewel in Corbyn's crown. It seems to me that his supporters have confused an aim - "no more austerity" - with an actual set of policies.
The suggestion that all MPs should be deselected once the leadership race had started. This is a complete u-turn of course, but it essentially says "Tow the line, or I'll ensure that anyone who doesn't agree with me won't be able to stand as an MP."
Because no one noticed the vast reduction in pensioner poverty, or the introduction of tax credits, or a functioning NHS or the massive rebuilding of schools and refurbishment of council houses.
Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know. The argument here is about how best to avoid more of this and I would suggest that triangulation and variants therrof have been shown not to work. In addition the one clear message I can get from reacent elections/referenda is that there's a big appetite for change - any change seemingly.
The problem is that the Corbyn faction assume that if you're not with them, then you don't want any kind of progressive change. It also assumes that these problems are easy to solve.
Just to get some perspective, no matter how much we may dislike the Tories, they are not a very right wing party in a broad sense. There are other major non-fringe parties across the western world who make them look like Mary Poppins at a picnic.
Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know.
Of course I noticed I also find it hard to miss the fact that the election of a Tory govt is swiftly followed my unemployment for me and most of the people I know.
Sorry if it's a touchy subject, but what did you do for a job?
One thing to consider (and I'm sure I've said this further up) is that the relationship between the media and people's opinions is not uni-directional. It is far too simplistic to say "The media hates Corbyn and they brainwash the people into hating him also", it's nowhere near as linear as that.
People generally read newspapers that reflect their own prejudice. Case in point, does anybody here read The Mail or The Sun? No. Why? Because they're full of vile right wing shit that we don't agree with. Newspaper editors know their readership and what they think, and they have a hard enough time flogging newspapers without trying to push stuff to the readers which they don't want to read. The content and tone of a paper will largely reflect the readership's opinion, but that doesn't mean that editors can't edge their readers towards one viewpoint or another on certain contentious issues. The relationship of influence between news content and readership opinion is very much circular.
Let's take this tenet and zoom out to look at the big picture. When you say "the media are biased against Corbyn", what you're actually saying is "the weight of popular opinion is against Corbyn and the media report on that". This is exacerbated in his case because he makes himself an easy target by not engaging with the media - i.e. he creates a vacuum which journalists need to fill - and unfortunately we live in a world where people enjoy the schadenfreude of laughing at the scruffy man with the beard.
I don't think it's a big conspiracy. I just think that outside of our little filter bubble of left-wing democratic socialists (or perhaps more accurately, revolutionary socialists, in the case of many Corbyn supporters) he's not very well liked. People do judge on looks. People do judge on personality. It is in our very nature. When you hold a minority view, as many of us do, it feels safe and cosy to tell yourself that there's a great conspiracy against you and your way of thinking. It reassures you that you're right and tells you that the majority of people are the ones who are wrong because they've been hoodwinked by an amorphous media bogeyman.
Corbyn's bloody great. He should be in the Green party (his Islington constituency would definitely re-elect him in a by-election should he defect), or hold some lesser position in the Labour party, influencing what they do.
With the obvious flaw of FPTP excepted, our parliamentary democracy is flipping brilliant, and Corbyn is breaking the model by trying to lead a party without compromise or consensus, and that is a bad thing (even the Guardian agrees with this).
No it's not. Cobyn is, as I said, a very English sort of populist. You may not have seen strong evidence, but what about the notorious NEC meeting, where several women asked for a secret ballot because they were afraid of the consequences of speaking against the leader? Stalking, online harrassement, their fearss of phyiscal assault. It's clearly not a good time to be a prominent woman in the Labour movement, and the fact that men in it say "yet to see strong evidence" is really a depressing sign of the depth of misogny within it.
Oh, and Corbyn's response to those women? To vote against them. Given others' safety or fears, and his own political survival, he chose the later. Do you see why some of us struggle with this wh
the chaos and the shambles - arguably as much the PLP as Corbyn. Lets not forget that several people refused to serve in his shadow cabinet from day 1 after he was elected. Corbyn surely takes some if not a lot of blame here, but it is a clear nonsense to put it all at his door. He's been herding kittens.
Really? The MPs who've been coming out of the woodwork to say how they tried to serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet but couldn't, are they some kind of dumb rabble who can't do their job properly? No, they are not. They are dedicated professionals trying to work as a solid, responsible opposition. They know what the job entails and they're trying to do it to the best of the ability.
The "coming out of the woodwork" bit is my problem. If this is genuinely the case why didn't they say that in the first place rather than this "unelectable" bollocks people might have been more sympathetic, I certainly would - now it just looks like somebody is lying and I don't know who.
They thought they'd try to make the best of it, work with the new leader, support him, etc - as the Corbynistas wanted. They gave it a good go. It didn't work. So they left at a time which seemed reasonable. ie when their position became no longer tenable. I don't think anyone's lying, this is just how things work surely?
QuoteSecret ballots are quite a sordid way to conduct democracy IMHO.
Blimey Twig - to me that's quite a shocking statement.
Should people show their hands so they can be taken to one side by the commissars afterwards if they voted the wrong way?
One of the reasons why we have secret ballots for our GE and indeed referendums is to prevent intimidation and bullying.
I dont understand your reply. You seem to be supporting the answer he gave and the notion that he should do as he says, which would entail gratuitous mass murder. Or is it just facetious point scoring?
He answered directly and gave an answer that may damage him politically, this suggests he was being honest.Personally I put unwillingness to slaughter millions of innocents higher up the spectrum of commendability than giving a straight answer.
A key criticisms of politicians is that they don't answer questions which are difficult, but instead try to evade them. You suggested he should "[refuse] to answer the question", I prefer it when a politician answers rather than evades.Yes in this case there is a good reason. I started from the assumption that nobody except an actual madman would authorize use of nuclear weapons. I can see no scenario where the actual use of them would save more innocent lives than it ended. Please feel free to give me some realistic hypothetical scenario which disproves this. Given my above assumption I surmised that he gave that answer in order to maintain the idea that the UK would use Nuclear weapons if provoked. I.e. it was a lie in order to maintain the notional deterrence value of the weapons. So it was my view that he wasn’t giving an honest answer to the question anyway, just going along with the conventional wisdom that you have to pretend you would use them. I find it gob smacking that you think he was honest and think the honesty outweighs the willingness to murder millions!
Authorising a nuclear strike does not make you into a genocidal manic, it is neither necessary nor sufficient.I don’t really know what legalistic type justification you are angling at there, but I doubt it would be of any consolation to the millions slaughtered or the people left behind in a ruined poisoned world. Statements like that just emphasise how far the conventional wisdom has strayed from basic human sanity.
While there is now a big question mark over whether the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 was justified (and it may well have been a war crime)There’s little doubt from what I’ve read, it was an irrelevant act as far as ending the war goes. A giant act of murderous willy waving.
…. it is not viewed as the beginning of an attempt by the allies to murder the entire Japanese population (genocide).Mass murder is mass murder, that was the moral equivalence I was drawing. Whether it is directed at or intended to destroy any particular subset of humanity is of precious little consequence in the grand scheme of things. If someone threatened to shoot your family would you actually care if it was driven by racism or pragmatism?
Owen Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:
1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.
2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill
3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.
4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."
5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.
6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.
7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.
8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he is a dick head.
Oily Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:
1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.
2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill
3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.
4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."
5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.
6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.
7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.
8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he really is a dick head. See, I can't make up my mind either...
Oily Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:
1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.
2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill
3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.
4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."
5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.
6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.
7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.
8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he really is a dick head. See, I can't make up my mind either...
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.
John LilburneI'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.
Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.
Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.
Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?
Tall order, but this'll do for starters:
Public confidence in politicians' integrity needs to be restored. At the moment the behaviour of our elected officials resembles an organised crime syndicate. They buy (or lie for) our votes, extract money from us and line their own, and their associates', pockets. We have a permanent political class, funded and controlled by big business.
"There is a big gap between politicians' understanding of integrity and that of the public, and disillusionment with the behaviour of politicians matters in terms of democratic engagement." (Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton)
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?
> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
No. The two policies I mentioned appeal to a specific demographic. With the Pensioner Bonds, for example, the Tories were desperate to win back the older voters. At the last general election, three-quarters of 60-year-olds turned out to vote, the huge majority of them for the Tories, compared with fewer than half of first-time voters (aged 18 to 24). This was a cynical attempt to bribe these voters.
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?
> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
Out of interest, would a pledge to plough loads of extra funding into the NHS be an attempt to buy votes by this logic? Or into schools? I don't agree with either of the policies you mentioned, but it's hard to imagine a world where political parties don't appeal to the section of the population that votes for them by doing things with public money to benefit those voters.
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?
> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
Out of interest, would a pledge to plough loads of extra funding into the NHS be an attempt to buy votes by this logic? Or into schools? I don't agree with either of the policies you mentioned, but it's hard to imagine a world where political parties don't appeal to the section of the population that votes for them by doing things with public money to benefit those voters.
No, because improving schools and improving the NHS benefits everyone. Those two above only help those who are:
a) Already quite well off
b) Don't give much of a fuck about the rest of society
Therefore a clear bribe for votes...
Cutting tuition fees (students), or improving access to benefits (unemployed or low-income people) are both policies that would appeal to a specific demographic of voters by spending public money. Do I take it that these hypothetical policies would be cynical attempts to bribe those voters?
No, because improving schools and improving the NHS benefits everyone. Those two above only help those who are:
a) Already quite well off
b) Don't give much of a fuck about the rest of society
Therefore a clear bribe for votes...
And now for some news on the Labour leadership battle:
Owen Smith goes to Orgreave and pretends to give a fuck about the Miners' Strike. Another PR stunt from a scab in an expensive suit. If he really gave a shit he would have signed the Early Day motions on Orgreave like Corbyn did. He's a fake, like far too many of our MPs.
(sigh)...yeah, you're right -- I've lost the plot. It's all cool really, the politicians are all working selflessly to represent the interests of the poor and disenfranchised, Labour represents a credible opposition to those nice Conservatives, corporate influence is merely a conspiracy theory I came up with during a particularly vibrant acid flashback, we can trust the system implicitly and I'm looking forward to celebrating the birthday of our Glorious New Leader, Kim-jong May. I'm all better now, nurse.
(warning: the above post may contain traces of sarcasm)
Accusing someone you disagree with of being a conspiracy theorist is a good ploy to use if you want to shut down public debate. Well done. You should get a job in politics.
Accusing someone you disagree with of being a conspiracy theorist is a good ploy to use if you want to shut down public debate. Well done. You should get a job in politics.
But the problem is, in the last year or so conspiracy theories have become much more widespread. Are you saying we must indulge all the crazies in their craziness?
.Fuck now I know why no one makes eye contact or speaks to me at work anymore.
The very ownership of an expensive suit is akin to being in the pocket of Beelzebub.
.Fuck now I know why no one makes eye contact or speaks to me at work anymore.
The very ownership of an expensive suit is akin to being in the pocket of Beelzebub.
Is it time for a lock and log?
I thought you worked from home these days. Other than when you are not frightening children and animals by appearing on the telly..Fuck now I know why no one makes eye contact or speaks to me at work anymore.
The very ownership of an expensive suit is akin to being in the pocket of Beelzebub.
Maybe I should start wearing one at work... Good plan.
The very ownership of an expensive suit is akin to being in the pocket of Beelzebub.
Is it time for a lock and log?
Point being that being somewhat sceptical of the political system, as tc appears to be, is not an irrational position.