Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 7:41:00 GMT 1
Labour's post-1997 open-door immigration policy is far more damaging to their credibility than the illegal war in Iraq. There is a school of thought which suggests that Labour deliberately and maliciously 'diversified' in an attempt to weaken Conservative strongholds. I doubt they will ever be forgiven by the layman. Which doesn't make any sense seeing as most migrants settled in areas already in diaspora, which are already Labour strongholds. In any case migrants from the middle and far east are naturally conservative anyway. In more ways than one.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Jul 23, 2015 11:44:08 GMT 1
I'm not sure what your saying no to? Your response to heavyglow made even less sense. "but if people were only voting SNP because of Labour's "no" stance, would the majority of others not have voted Labour because of their "no stance"? " No they wouldn't. Why would a tory or lib dem voter who voted against independence suddenly switch allegiances to Labour? I agree that many in Scotland felt that Labour had moved away from them, but at the heart of it was the fact that, if England votes conservative, Britain gets a conservative government (as proved this year). Independence would clearly give the left better representation and therefore the left in Scotland has moved to the SNP. Some believe that a more devolved Labour party may win back those voters. However, just look at the Lib Dems to see the failings of localised party's. The Lib Dems have, for many years, run very different campaigns in different areas of the country. Once they entered government they couldn't placate all of their electorate and this was partly responsible for their complete collapse. Labour failed because it didn't have a strong and coherent vision for the country. The party need to listen to the country rather than itself if they are going to build a compelling enough vision to win the next election. If you think we're in the same situation as Spain or Greece, where enough people were for pushed towards the political extremes, you're blind to the fact that middle England have not been hit anywhere near hard enough to take that chance. Venceremos suggests that a cataclysmic turn of events will swing Labour into power, but i'm sure they thought that after the last election when things were allot bleaker. With an unpopular government and a Euro crisis, Labour still went backwards. It'll take quite abit more to get Labour back in power. I was saying no as an agreement that it didn't make sense; I'll try without attempting to be ironic or getting arsey because of an incredibly odd and patronising response. I shouldn't write when half asleep. But my point was that those who voted Labour in Scotland are, I feel, quite unlikely to turn against them (and of course many of those who voted yes would have already been SNP) on the back of just their no stance, although some may have. The SNP's platform for the election had nothing to do with independence and they made that very clear. Furthermore, there were plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who voted yes who wouldn't have been eligible to vote for the general election, so the proportion of voters in the general election who voted yes will have been above 55% anyway. Essentially, I think suggesting the only reason that the SNP reshaped the Scottish political landscape was Labour backing a no vote is completely wrong. It may have been one of many contributory factors, but as you say, their garbled and weak message for what they were going to do, largely Tory-lite policies, was - in my opinion - far more important. Sorry for being patronising (although i don't see how my response was 'incredibly odd'!) but i really didn't see your point. However, that was a much better response and a good point about the under 18 vote, so pat on the head for that ;-) If you look at the 2015 election result in Scotland with historical context, Labours vote had bobbled between 35 and 45% up to 2010. In 1997 it rose to its highest share (45%) since 1966 and by 2010 this hadn't dropped significantly. If this was all about being disenfranchised due to Blairite 3rd way politics this share would have drifted away bit by bit during that period, but it didn't. The big change happened in the last 5 years when , if anything, Labour moved left, not right. Saying that the SNP platform had nothing to do with Independence is like saying the Mcdonalds menu has nothing to do with meat, Its intrinsically part of their platform and their USP. You don't take the pretty big leap of voting for independence and then, a few months later, back a party that whole heartedly opposed it (although it would be very interesting to understand how many did!) Although i'm not saying disillusion with Labour didn't play a role, I believe the greater influence came from further devolution and possible independence put forward by the SNP.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Jul 23, 2015 11:45:36 GMT 1
I'm not sure what your saying no to? Your response to heavyglow made even less sense. "but if people were only voting SNP because of Labour's "no" stance, would the majority of others not have voted Labour because of their "no stance"? " No they wouldn't. Why would a tory or lib dem voter who voted against independence suddenly switch allegiances to Labour? I agree that many in Scotland felt that Labour had moved away from them, but at the heart of it was the fact that, if England votes conservative, Britain gets a conservative government (as proved this year). Independence would clearly give the left better representation and therefore the left in Scotland has moved to the SNP. Some believe that a more devolved Labour party may win back those voters. However, just look at the Lib Dems to see the failings of localised party's. The Lib Dems have, for many years, run very different campaigns in different areas of the country. Once they entered government they couldn't placate all of their electorate and this was partly responsible for their complete collapse. Labour failed because it didn't have a strong and coherent vision for the country. The party need to listen to the country rather than itself if they are going to build a compelling enough vision to win the next election. If you think we're in the same situation as Spain or Greece, where enough people were for pushed towards the political extremes, you're blind to the fact that middle England have not been hit anywhere near hard enough to take that chance. Venceremos suggests that a cataclysmic turn of events will swing Labour into power, but i'm sure they thought that after the last election when things were allot bleaker. With an unpopular government and a Euro crisis, Labour still went backwards. It'll take quite abit more to get Labour back in power. Sorry to digress away from the topic of conversation but I was of the opinion that I was the only Salop fan in Loughborough. (Well the LE12 postal code anyway...and assuming that is where you are by your username). I was a student and researcher there between 1999 and 2007. Now residing in Leamington Spa but can't be arsed to change my name.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 23, 2015 12:34:44 GMT 1
I was saying no as an agreement that it didn't make sense; I'll try without attempting to be ironic or getting arsey because of an incredibly odd and patronising response. I shouldn't write when half asleep. But my point was that those who voted Labour in Scotland are, I feel, quite unlikely to turn against them (and of course many of those who voted yes would have already been SNP) on the back of just their no stance, although some may have. The SNP's platform for the election had nothing to do with independence and they made that very clear. Furthermore, there were plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who voted yes who wouldn't have been eligible to vote for the general election, so the proportion of voters in the general election who voted yes will have been above 55% anyway. Essentially, I think suggesting the only reason that the SNP reshaped the Scottish political landscape was Labour backing a no vote is completely wrong. It may have been one of many contributory factors, but as you say, their garbled and weak message for what they were going to do, largely Tory-lite policies, was - in my opinion - far more important. Sorry for being patronising (although i don't see how my response was 'incredibly odd'!) but i really didn't see your point. However, that was a much better response and a good point about the under 18 vote, so pat on the head for that ;-) If you look at the 2015 election result in Scotland with historical context, Labours vote had bobbled between 35 and 45% up to 2010. In 1997 it rose to its highest share (45%) since 1966 and by 2010 this hadn't dropped significantly. If this was all about being disenfranchised due to Blairite 3rd way politics this share would have drifted away bit by bit during that period, but it didn't. The big change happened in the last 5 years when , if anything, Labour moved left, not right. Saying that the SNP platform had nothing to do with Independence is like saying the Mcdonalds menu has nothing to do with meat, Its intrinsically part of their platform and their USP. You don't take the pretty big leap of voting for independence and then, a few months later, back a party that whole heartedly opposed it (although it would be very interesting to understand how many did!) Although i'm not saying disillusion with Labour didn't play a role, I believe the greater influence came from further devolution and possible independence put forward by the SNP. I wasn't calling you patronising (or indeed odd), that was in response to Heavyglow's post with the misuse of the word "histrionics". While I'm aware the SNP will always have a strong link to independence and even though it was avoided in their manifesto and debates, voters aren't (mostly) stupid and will obviously be aware that it will always be something which the SNP will push for and support in the long-term. They way I see it is that most of the voters this time around would have voted Labour rather than SNP if their manifestos were switched over, and Labour had a credible leader with the debating and oratory prowess of Sturgeon. I don't doubt that Labour would have alienated some due to their referendum stance, but I just feel - and it can be debated 'til the cows come home; there is no way this can ever be factually confirmed - that most of those who would base their decision pretty much solely on the independence issue would be those 20% who had voted SNP in the previous election. I don't know huge numbers of Scots, but I know (and know of) quite a few who voted "yes" and then not SNP and vice-versa. This is partly because I can't imagine that the referendum stances would have affected my choice in the election if I were a Scottish "yes" voter, but I may well be in the minority. Furthermore, half the people in Scotland voted SNP. Maybe 42/43% of the electorate had voted yes in the referendum (and I'd say it's fair to say that half of those had voted SNP previously - plus plenty of voters aged under 23 who wouldn't have voted in the previous election and would have been a higher proportion of SNP than any other party), so there were some highly significant gains from all the other parties. I guess ultimately this is a fairly futile discussion as neither of us doubts that it was a culmination of different factors that drove so many Scots to vote SNP, and we'll never actually know what was the biggest single factor. I probably base my decision on the reaction most people had to Nicola Sturgeon in the TV debates and the SNP's overall message, non-Scots especially, and the suggestion from most polls that the majority of Brits were most impressed by her/them.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 23, 2015 15:17:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 23, 2015 17:17:39 GMT 1
I accept that some believe it is but, in the longer term, immigration isn't really a party political issue. It's all about economics and ultimately that transcends party politics.
The hypocrisy surrounding immigration was captured perfectly in an interview I heard on the radio this week. A British builder complained about Polish builders undercutting him and moaned that Britain was finished and that's why he's emigrated to France. How's he doing in France? Getting by ok, because he's undercutting the French builders ..... Even he seemed amused at the irony.
Globalisation has changed everything and there's no point getting in a lather about immigration unless you have a coherent strategy for reversing globalisation. Good luck to any politician attempting that because there's no going back as far as the big corporations are concerned.
Our standard of living hasn't stagnated because of immigration. The economic orthodoxy is that you shift production offshore as soon as you're able to, because it lowers your production costs and makes your business more competitive. In mature markets the quickest and easiest way to grow profits is to cut costs.
Globalisation has taken so many jobs out of our economy and left us with armies of part-timers and self employed people who, by any normal definition, would also best be classed as working part time. It keeps the unemployment figures low but also explains our low productivity and income growth.
A strong economy cures many ills. If the UK economy grows healthier, immigration will drop way down the list of concerns. It's always the same. The real danger is that we'll throw up too many barriers to entry and the people who might help transform our economy will go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 23, 2015 17:20:14 GMT 1
I trust you and everyone else will be opposing the government's plans to curtail the Freedom of Information Act, without which the MPs' expenses stories would have remained secret.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Jul 23, 2015 21:45:05 GMT 1
So immigration has killed the Labour Party... and the Tories are blameless? The biggest single reason for the immigration problem is the widening of the EU to take in so many Eastern European countries for Realpolik reasons, under instructions from the USA, who want to surround Russia with Nato allied countries. They are bending over backwards to scoop up The Ukraine, using every bit of skullduggery in the book. You thought the Polish Labour invasion was bad... wait until Ukraine with a far greater population join. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Cameron dances to the USA's tune as much as the obnoxious Blair did. I don't think Corbyn would.
And at least with Corbyn he has a lined, lived in face, rather than these smooth faced puppet-like public schoolboys who run the country.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 24, 2015 8:53:15 GMT 1
Corbyn's just too old fashioned to appeal to voters.
David Cameron has just written a piece for the Mail in which he sets out his vision of recapturing the spirit of the 'Elizabethan age' setting sail for 'far flung lands' and doing trade (well, probably selling arms) with corrupt nations.
Which all sounds very modern to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 10:15:09 GMT 1
I can't imagine Cameron actually believes that, unless he's a bigger tool than I thought.
Some DM readers will love that rhetoric though. He knows his audience.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle_Monkey on Jul 24, 2015 13:59:42 GMT 1
Personally, i shall vote for Corbyn on the grounds that he may just shake the whole party and restore some of its core values. the flip side of that is that if elected he wouldnt win the next election, but then The Labour Party wont win that whoever is the leader. For me it's Corbyn to do what is necessary and then make way for a serious prime minister candiadte at a later date I have already voted for him, it was a £1 well spent I admire your enthusiasm Downie. Especially as I thought the ballots didn't open until 14th August.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 24, 2015 15:18:19 GMT 1
So immigration has killed the Labour Party... Indeed, apparently to rub the rights nose in diversity. I guess killed maybe too strong a word. What I mean by that is that I think it has damaged them to the extent that I do not think they will be winning any general elections any time soon. And it has damaged them. I mean look to things leading up to this years general election. First we have a Labour MP 'sneering' at a white van man working class bloke for having the audacity to fly an English flag from his house. Then a while later you have senior Labour folk attending a political party meeting which is segregated by gender. It's as if they wanted a good shoeing at the election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 15:40:05 GMT 1
Immigration and diversity are two different things.
So if immigration killed the Labour party then surely it will kill off the Tories. Immigration is driven by economic factors that are out of the control of government. It business wants cheap unskilled/skilled labour that is flexible then that is what business will get. The Tories aren't going to say no to business.
Diversity just isn't about the colour of people's skin either. So are the 'right' upset about being forced to respect and accept people of either, different races, LGBT, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and even women. Or the whole lot...
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jul 24, 2015 17:10:34 GMT 1
Think immigration hit both Labour and the Conservatives at the election. UKIP after all got 4 million votes and had either party got those votes the election could have been very different
Labour lost out in the working class communities where there is a perception immigration is costing the existing community jobs and houses.
Conservatives lost out more in the Shires and costal towns where there was big anti immigration feeling, despite there often not being many immigrants there. Conservatives also seemed to lose votes to UKIP over the equal marriage issue too.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 24, 2015 18:54:39 GMT 1
I can't imagine Cameron actually believes that, unless he's a bigger tool than I thought. Some DM readers will love that rhetoric though. He knows his audience. Yeah, fair point ,the guff about the 'Age of Discovery' and 'Elizabethan endeavour' is probably just playing to the gallery. But I believe he absolutely means it when he says the freedom to trade should not be hindered by ethical considerations. That's the Tory ideology in a f***ing nutshell!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 19:08:08 GMT 1
I can't imagine Cameron actually believes that, unless he's a bigger tool than I thought. Some DM readers will love that rhetoric though. He knows his audience. But I believe he absolutely means it when he says the freedom to trade should not be hindered by ethical considerations. Oh absolutely, successive governments have been doing it years.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 26, 2015 19:06:20 GMT 1
I'm a recent joiner of the Labour Party, prompted by no longer working in a unionised workplace and the General Election result. Yes I am a left-wing entrist. An extremist in fact, although not a fanatic. I'm voting for Corbyn because I am against austerity and he very nearly is as well. He still harbours ambitions to reduce and eradicate the deficit. But that is ridiculous and he needs to take note of this recent letter from 77 economists in the Guardian: www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/12/osborne-plan-has-no-basis-in-economicsInstead he thinks that these things can be reconciled through growth. But continued growth involves environmental damage and economic activity unsubsidised by the drawdown of natural resources will not produce things that we currently crave: www.resilience.org/stories/2015-06-05/renewable-energy-will-not-support-economic-growth If anyone is interested in seeing a graphic for the UK sectoral balances then here's one that is regularly updated: www.3spoken.co.uk/2015/06/uk-sectoral-balances-q1-2015.htmlThankfully there is a government deficit. Its size is not only harmless but supportive of economic activity. The other aspect of austerity is it is driving wages, social wages (services provided free at the point of use or on a subsidised basis) and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up. It seems obvious to me that the Labour Party should be against that. It isn't obvious to the managerialist elements that seek to control the direction of the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 28, 2015 5:08:30 GMT 1
I've just returned from a 6 week stint in Asia where we were working hours that meant no access to news or the outside world. I am catching up and cannot believe how depressing the Labour leadership debate is - none are in any way appealing and Corbyn is a throwback to the 70s, I can only imagine the Tories are supporting his candidacy.
I've read this thread and it depresses me more. Blair got the party back on track to being electable; abandoning and discrediting everything he did becuase of the disasterous judgement on the Iraq war is going to send the party into the unelectable left wing niche previously enjoyed by the communist party.
In the absence of any sensible policies or credible alternative the "I'm alright jack", anti-immigration, anti-scrounger perception of the Tories they will win future elections without them needing to say a word (like they have just done). We need to tackle the issues thrown at us head on with sensible policies to be able to direct the discussion and not allow the debate to descend into the void of negative "burying the head in the sand - we need to stick to the ideology" and "open the nation's wallet" solutions which in a modern global economy are the equivalent of bending over and inviting everyone to take advantage.
We are facing massive challenges in the NHS, education, policing, social services, prison service, etc but we are letting the Tories avoid any real debate by refusing to accept where they do raise small deflecting issues that genuinely exist. For example; Defending the spend for troubled teens going on a two week sailing trip around the Med to build their character is going to let the Tories justify making cuts that will result in axing support for areas of genuine and immediate need like caring for the disabled. It may be the despised Reactionary politics employed by Blair - but it works and it improves the system - it was called "popularist" for a reason and that is the on,y way we will get back into power.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 28, 2015 8:14:57 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 8:35:09 GMT 1
What I find depressing is the continual thought that anything to the 'left' is somehow communist.
How trite.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Claridge on Jul 28, 2015 9:36:15 GMT 1
I've amended my 'personal preferences' on the Unite website (Clergy and Faith Workers branch in the Voluntary and Not For Profit section - a non-striking group incidentally) to tick the box 'Labour Party Affiliate' so I can vote.
I'll be voting for Corbyn. The discussions I had over here in West Brom after the General election revealed that many people just felt that Labour had lost all contact with, and relevance to, the grassroots. Although there was never any possibility of Labour losing this seat (Tom Watson's), many people did split votes one way or another in local and national elections between UKIP and Labour. Simply because of the fact they felt that Labour weren't listening enough.
Corbin stands for the principle that there are other ways to overcome the debt other than victimising the weakest members of society. The weakest are an easy target for the Government, one reason being that many of them don't have a vote. That's because either they have become so separated from the electoral process or their lifestyle, resulting from current policies, means they are never in the same place long enough to register.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 28, 2015 11:17:22 GMT 1
Yes - the irony was not lost on me. Blair accusing the left of being popularist by supporting anti-austerity and the left accusing Blair of abandoning Labour's principles to appeal to more voters. You have to admit we are in a funny position where doing what the people want is being vilified.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 28, 2015 11:19:03 GMT 1
What I find depressing is the continual thought that anything to the 'left' is somehow communist. How trite. Quoting out of context is a lazy form of argument.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 28, 2015 11:24:07 GMT 1
I've amended my 'personal preferences' on the Unite website (Clergy and Faith Workers branch in the Voluntary and Not For Profit section - a non-striking group incidentally) to tick the box 'Labour Party Affiliate' so I can vote. I'll be voting for Corbyn. The discussions I had over here in West Brom after the General election revealed that many people just felt that Labour had lost all contact with, and relevance to, the grassroots. Although there was never any possibility of Labour losing this seat (Tom Watson's), many people did split votes one way or another in local and national elections between UKIP and Labour. Simply because of the fact they felt that Labour weren't listening enough. Corbin stands for the principle that there are other ways to overcome the debt other than victimising the weakest members of society. The weakest are an easy target for the Government, one reason being that many of them don't have a vote. That's because either they have become so separated from the electoral process or their lifestyle, resulting from current policies, means they are never in the same place long enough to register. Whilst Corbyn appears a genuine man and much of what he says makes sense there is a dogma and ideology in him that seems to block out any form of pragmatism or indeed listening. If you like what he preaches then fine, if not then he won't listen and he won't change - there is no way that kind of attitude will get Labour elected and we will be stuck with the Tories again. We are becoming a much more divided society and splitting the labour vote (as we clearly are) will only have one outcome. There needs to be a better candidate to bring together the party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
O/T Blair
Jul 28, 2015 13:04:12 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 13:04:12 GMT 1
Yes - the irony was not lost on me. Blair accusing the left of being popularist by supporting anti-austerity and the left accusing Blair of abandoning Labour's principles to appeal to more voters. You have to admit we are in a funny position where doing what the people want is being vilified. Out of curiosity which of labours principles did Tony Blair abandon? This thread is a good example of the problems facing the Labour Party right now.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 28, 2015 17:08:31 GMT 1
Yes - the irony was not lost on me. Blair accusing the left of being popularist by supporting anti-austerity and the left accusing Blair of abandoning Labour's principles to appeal to more voters. You have to admit we are in a funny position where doing what the people want is being vilified. Out of curiosity which of labours principles did Tony Blair abandon? This thread is a good example of the problems facing the Labour Party right now. Embracing the concept of the free market as opposed to Nationalisation or managed economies is the one that normally gets thrown up in discussion; soon followed by the deregulation of financial markets that caused the crisis because you cannot trust evil bankers. Please don't get me wrong I think that Blair was the best thing to happen to the Labour party and I'm worried that we are now going back on the progress he had made.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jul 28, 2015 18:12:23 GMT 1
It's not so much a principle of Labour, more the way the party made policy that changed.
Previously it was a very bottom up organisation with the members driving the policy making that MPs then implemented, under Blair decision making became much more centralised and made by advisors to MPs not necessarily members
There was a lot of logic in the changes to challenge the block voting of the Unions that dominated policy in the 70s and 80s, and was successful in the 90s but possibly went too far and distanced the party from what was traditionally its core membership and core voters
To an extent the distancing of politicians from the public is an issue for all parties, but particularly for Labour which has always been heavily dependent on it membership for income and to promote and run local campaigns
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:29:34 GMT 1
What I find depressing is the continual thought that anything to the 'left' is somehow communist. How trite. Quoting out of context is a lazy form of argument. Your argument is that is that if the 70s throwback Corbyn becomes LP leader (don't worry he won't) then the LP will lurch so far left it will enjoy a niche last seen by the communist party. Which communist party is that by the way. Corbyn is not a communist, I don't really think he's a socialist in the truest sense. It's trite to say that anybody who desires a left wing alternative is a communist or even a a socialist.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 29, 2015 22:30:39 GMT 1
The Blair approach won't work because Scotland has gone. Perhaps not for good but for a long time.
Chief Whip to the Liberal Democrats is the easiest job in Britain because occupying the centre ground is such a successful strategy.
Following the line pedaled by Liz Kendall is like the Jedi accepting some of the reforms by the Dark Side as reasonable to just appear a more acceptable alternative to Darth Vader.
Corbyn appears doctrinaire because he operates outside the cognitive map set by the rich and the powerful through their ownership of the media and funding of think tanks.
The luxury of operating within the cognitive map so set is that what is said is seen as fact and even straightforward commonsense when it is ideology and lies.
A beautiful example of this emerged this week. The Daily Telegraph consistently peddles untrue negative stories about the NHS. So a week ago it run a story about Michael Gove couldn't get an x-ray at the weekend. Basically it was a report of his wife's rant as fact.
The following day the small correction was printed: "Yesterday's article wrongly implied that all NHS radiology departments close on Sundays. They are in fact open 24 hours a day for emergencies in many hospitals other than the minor injuries unit attended by Mr Gove. We are happy to make this clear."
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jul 30, 2015 8:20:30 GMT 1
I'm surprised how many people are saying they should not have him as leader because he is unelectable.
The real question is are his politics genuine.
Better a party true to its word than bending what you stand for in order to gain a popularity vote.
I know you can't change anything without being in power, and you've got to win votes, but where did politicians convincing an electorate go?
There would be a huge swathe of people ready to accept unchecked capitalism isn't working. Sure, the press would hate him. But social media has changed the rules on that too.
|
|