|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 22, 2015 16:43:12 GMT 1
Love the comments following the article. One said that she is so dim, she makes Ant and Dec look like intellectuals. Another that she would be out of her depth in a car-park puddle. Apparently she thought that Charlie Hebdo was an actual person!
But it wasn't just her lack of Twitter knowledge that caught her out... what she did was deliberate and cynical deceipt.
I have never seen such a frenzied epidemic of people s******g their pants.
A month ago all of the Tory mouthpieces, including the Telegraph, were mockingly calling for him to win. Now they are going into overdrive to stop him. Why? And it makes a mockery of the Labour Grandees' claims that "thousands" of Tories have "infiltrated" the election to vote for him, when now the message to the Tory faithful is to stop him.
Meanwhile ghastly Harriet is stopping anybody who left the party over Iraq but are now wanting to return, or who have ever dared to be a floating voter and voted on policies, from rejoining. It's almost like a cult; if you ever questioned Blair's New Labour, you are an apostate.
The people of this country are seeing the PLP trying to destroy democracy in front of our eyes.
And apparently, not only have Tory's infiltrated the Labour Party, they must be going and cheering at his 1,000 strong rallies. Why would they need to do that.
Meanwhile poor Andy, Yvette and Liz, who are lucky to get 50 people at their rallies, and that is only if they provide free sandwiches, just keep on trying every dirty trick in the book.
"NEW LABOUR - LET'S END DEMOCRACY TOGETHER"
"NEW TORIES - LET'S LIE AND CHEAT TO STAY IN POWER"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 18:43:31 GMT 1
Rather enjoyed reading your post sussexshrew . Particularly liked the last two lines . Keep them coming .
|
|
|
Post by shrewblue on Aug 23, 2015 9:26:53 GMT 1
I think the sentiment above supports the lack of options theory and Corbyn being the best option even if he may not be electable but lots can change in politics in a short time....
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 23, 2015 9:49:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Aug 23, 2015 10:49:19 GMT 1
Thanks for that nwm a cracking Sunday morning chuckle. I particularly enjoyed the bit about One Direction going on tour and never coming back. Let's hope that really does happen. Was anyone else reading about the oligarchs and footballers leaving and thinking where's the downside? And President Trump? And the Mail think Corbyn is unelectable.....
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 23, 2015 10:54:47 GMT 1
Yeah, guaranteeing that One Direction will never come back is definitely a vote winner all the way!
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 23, 2015 11:30:17 GMT 1
And here's another one from the Telegraph - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11817162/Jeremy-Corbyn-must-be-stopped.htmlThe interesting bit is that, once again, the majority of the comments from this paper's readers dismiss this article for what it is. Propaganda. It won't be long before one of these papers suggests that any Tory voters who've paid their 3 pounds to vote for Corbyn now switch to one of the other three candidates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 11:39:09 GMT 1
Should the media be allowed to try an influence the democratic process like this? If this was a trades union running these kind of stories there would be legislation!!
I also find it ironic that they have pictures of riots and burning sky lines............something seen under every government for the last 40 years.....except perhaps John Majzzzzzzzzzz........zzzzzzzzzz............zzzzzzzzz...........zzzzzzzzz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 12:11:39 GMT 1
Influencing democracy is what papers do.
Papers informing opinion is an entirely different matter though...
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Aug 23, 2015 13:53:11 GMT 1
Corbyn stories are less about Labour, more about distracting people from the policies of the new government
In the last week international monetary markets experts have warned against a new crash; UK borrowing has hit record levels and Ian Duncan Smith's department has been shown to be using fake benefit claimant stories to justify changes to benefit sanctions.
Very little of which has registered with the UK press
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Aug 23, 2015 14:25:01 GMT 1
The depressing thing is that a fair proportion of the electorate believe that the comparison between Corbyn's plan for so called "PQE" is comparable to the cause of hyper-inflation in post-colonial Zimbabwe or the war torn Weimar Republic, despite how blatantly absurd that comparison is, purely because they trust purveyors of conventional wisdom like the Mail more than dozens of the country's most respected economists.
That's on of the major issues with this country at the minute; class prejudice carries a lot more weight than facts. You only have to look at the treatment meted out to David Nutt (asked to advise the government as one of the most respected members of his field; widely derided when he didn't return the answer the government wanted to hear) or the fact that Clarkson's opinion on anything is still considered sage advise by a depressingly large number of people (was anyone else as appalled as I was by Clarkson's "A Levels don't matter - look at me!" tweet the other day? Talk about poverty of ambition....).
To clarify, Corbyn's plans are neither extreme nor difficult to understand. They're broadly in line with traditional Keynesian ideals or counter-cyclical spending favoured by both Tory and Labour governments during the post war consensus years and by New Labour more recently. In short, you run a deficit in the lean years by spending to stimulate the economy then pay it back during the boom years when a surplus is possible. To use the 'household budget' analogy which so many on the right seem to love (even though it's complete bunk), it's no different from the millions of us who've benefitted from the availability of cheap credit to buy houses or other high value goods during the present slump because there's very little return to be had by keeping your money in savings.
Where Corbyn differs from the traditional Keynesian idea is two-fold. Firstly, his method of injecting the money into the economy; on the grounds that (quite reasonably) he's argued that the banks can't be trusted to actually use the increased cash supply for its intended purpose, he proposes to channel the funding into government funded infrastructure projects. Few would argue with this line of thinking and, as has already been quoted above, this kind of heavy investment in infrastructure has a proven track record of getting results for the economy.
Secondly, he's looking to circumvent the (ironically New Labour invented) concept that the amount of money creation should be determined by the MPC and not the government. This is where detractors in the right wing press might actually have some valid grounds for complaint but they seem instead to have insulted the intelligence of the wider electorate by focussing on nonsensical scaremongering comparisons with Greece and Zimbabwe which even their own readership can see straight through.
Furthermore, presenting renationalisation of the railways as a straight up choice between bringing back BR and keeping the current model with no acknowledgment of the possibility of an improved public sector offering, particularly given the success of the East Coast franchise prior to its being returned to private hands is also underestimating the public's capacity for critical thinking.
Not sure what to make of the talk around his foreign policy views. Hard to make out how much is mudslinging and how much is real. Definitely some potential cause for concern there though. Certainly nice to see the smug conservative derision backfiring on them though.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 23, 2015 15:43:57 GMT 1
I am waiting for confirmation from the club that One Direction won't be coming back to Britain if owd Jezza wins. If this is the case, I will of course change my vote to Liz Kendall.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 23, 2015 16:08:02 GMT 1
There is a truth in this who Jez Corbyn saga though. If he gets in then the Labour party have no chance of winning at the next election and it's as simple as that. Can anybody really see the public electing a Shaggy-from Scooby-Do-lookalike who wants to ban the bomb? Doesn't look like a leader, doesn't behave like a leader and has no chance of influencing anybody on the world stage.
Burnham on the other hand may appeal to the electorate. Not as childish as Miliband, sensible and statesmanlike with a bit of help. Not there yet, but way ahead of Corbyn in terms of being electable.
Corbyn sees that the Labour party need to be 'different', a kind of new, New Labour, you might say. But he doesn't know how to implement a sensible difference to the public. He's just the wrong one to make it happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 17:26:42 GMT 1
No doubt the glorious Daily Mail forgot to inform its readership that the housing minister Brandon Lewis has claimed more than £30,000 from the tax payer for hotel accom. in two years . Brandon only owns three houses worth in total £ 3.5m , two of them less than an hour by train from Westminster . He claimed for 99 overnight stays at a rate of 150 a night last year , 106 times the previous year . The poor man has not broken any rules by all account but " has shown a lack of judgement and sensitivity spending taxpayers money unnecessarily " . In other words he has been a money grabbing t**t , but has previously been disgusted and angry at the behaviour of some members at Westminster . He has said that " It has taken a new generation of MP's to end the cosy arrangements that allowed individuals to profit from the tax payer ". Nice to see that George's austerity measures are working and that we are , indeed , all in this together , as Dave keeps on reminding us. That's a relief then , trebles all round for Brandon and his mates . Cheers .
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 23, 2015 21:20:13 GMT 1
Sorry champagneprince, I didn't realise it was "as simple as that".
I thought it was a bit more complicated. I thought that the new boundary changes that the government are putting into place would make it nigh on impossible for a Labour party victory unless they could galvanise those Labour supporters who have given up on Tory-Lite New Labour to come out and vote again for an anti-Austerity ticket, and for Labour to regain seats in Scotland.
The chances of Andy Burnham picking up another vote, let alone another seat in Scotland with his broad support of Tory Economics, give or take a minor tweak, are almost nil.
And as for his Statesmanship galvanising disenfranchised Labour supporters, around 100 people at his meetings says it all... especially as half of those are his support team and journalists, and of the other 50... 30 are there for the free sandwiches.
My girlfriend's son has recently done a Masters in International Politics and these last two weeks has returned to Cambridge as a guest lecturer. He reports that the interest in Politics among the young has taken off with a passion... but there is barely any support for Burnham.
And... if Burnham is indeed as you say, far and away more electable than Corbyn... why are The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Times, The Daily Express, Louise Mensch et al panicking like headless chickens in a frenzied attempt to prevent Corbyn being elected. Surely if Burnham was the greater threat to the Tories, it is he they would be trying to assassinate in their pages.
Is it possible that it being "as simple as that" is your opinion, and although indeed you may be completely right, there is evidence that suggests that it may not be as simple as that. Politics seldom is.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 23, 2015 21:46:34 GMT 1
Following your post SevernHeaven, I have just been looking up some of the other creative expense claims for Brandon Lewis.... all completely legal of course... which include a £37,000 claim for Parliamentary assistance from a consultant in Glencoe... 400 miles from his consistuency.
Andrew Baxter of the cutely named Papagenos Consultancy, works one day a week for his money, combined with running a sub post-office.
Yes we are all in it together, because everything the housing minister is doing is perfectly legal, and it would be very wrong of us to even think of words like trough and snout, something that I have stopped myself doing.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Aug 23, 2015 23:22:40 GMT 1
Apparently she thought that Charlie Hebdo was an actual person!
Bloody hell. I'd better have a look at soccerbase. I thought he played for Carlisle.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 23, 2015 23:28:57 GMT 1
Sorry champagneprince, I didn't realise it was "as simple as that". I thought it was a bit more complicated. I thought that the new boundary changes that the government are putting into place would make it nigh on impossible for a Labour party victory unless they could galvanise those Labour supporters who have given up on Tory-Lite New Labour to come out and vote again for an anti-Austerity ticket, and for Labour to regain seats in Scotland. The chances of Andy Burnham picking up another vote, let alone another seat in Scotland with his broad support of Tory Economics, give or take a minor tweak, are almost nil. And as for his Statesmanship galvanising disenfranchised Labour supporters, around 100 people at his meetings says it all... especially as half of those are his support team and journalists, and of the other 50... 30 are there for the free sandwiches. My girlfriend's son has recently done a Masters in International Politics and these last two weeks has returned to Cambridge as a guest lecturer. He reports that the interest in Politics among the young has taken off with a passion... but there is barely any support for Burnham. And... if Burnham is indeed as you say, far and away more electable than Corbyn... why are The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Times, The Daily Express, Louise Mensch et al panicking like headless chickens in a frenzied attempt to prevent Corbyn being elected. Surely if Burnham was the greater threat to the Tories, it is he they would be trying to assassinate in their pages. Is it possible that it being "as simple as that" is your opinion, and although indeed you may be completely right, there is evidence that suggests that it may not be as simple as that. Politics seldom is. Please don't mistake the popularity of Corbyn within the Labour Party to popularity with the general public. A local radio station in Norwich recently asked its listeners if they remembered a public appearance so well attended in the city as Corbyns, the answer was... Michael Foot prior to the 83 election and we all know how that went. He's preaching to the converted. The Corbyn campaign is becoming more of an echo chamber by the day, convincing itself that simply galvanising it's own support is enough to win. It's not and if you think floating voters are gong to back an alternative economic strategy when there's a modicum of growth around, you're nuts. People are all for public service improvement but when there's even a slight risk to putting bread on the table to achieve it, why take that risk? Whatever you say, we aren't Greece or Spain, our economy isn't on it's knees and people aren't desperate enough to take that risk.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 24, 2015 2:28:01 GMT 1
Sorry champagneprince, I didn't realise it was "as simple as that". I thought it was a bit more complicated. I thought that the new boundary changes that the government are putting into place would make it nigh on impossible for a Labour party victory unless they could galvanise those Labour supporters who have given up on Tory-Lite New Labour to come out and vote again for an anti-Austerity ticket, and for Labour to regain seats in Scotland. The chances of Andy Burnham picking up another vote, let alone another seat in Scotland with his broad support of Tory Economics, give or take a minor tweak, are almost nil. And as for his Statesmanship galvanising disenfranchised Labour supporters, around 100 people at his meetings says it all... especially as half of those are his support team and journalists, and of the other 50... 30 are there for the free sandwiches. My girlfriend's son has recently done a Masters in International Politics and these last two weeks has returned to Cambridge as a guest lecturer. He reports that the interest in Politics among the young has taken off with a passion... but there is barely any support for Burnham. And... if Burnham is indeed as you say, far and away more electable than Corbyn... why are The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Times, The Daily Express, Louise Mensch et al panicking like headless chickens in a frenzied attempt to prevent Corbyn being elected. Surely if Burnham was the greater threat to the Tories, it is he they would be trying to assassinate in their pages. Is it possible that it being "as simple as that" is your opinion, and although indeed you may be completely right, there is evidence that suggests that it may not be as simple as that. Politics seldom is. The only thing I said was 'as simple as that' was that electing Corbyn would mean Labour wouldn't get in at the next General Election.
And that is 'as simple as that'.
And please don't mention the University Grads and their interest in politics. They were apparently interested back in May but had no influence on the overall result. Miliband (remember him?) thought he was in with the young voters, he even got Russell Brand on side and built a silly statue to put in the number 10 garden. They may well vote for Corbyn and not for Burnham but they will be wrong, just like they were wrong to vote for Miliband (who was also unelectable).
The papers don't work like that either. If you are a Tory paper, you assassinate the one who is most newsworthy at the present time. It's easy to do, because he is unelectable. Burnham is more electable, but he can wait. They have four years to destroy him. Right now they need to sell papers and they'll do that by ridiculing the easiest person to ridicule. Making an ass of Corbyn and the Labour party in turn, sells more papers than trying to pick holes in the other candidates. Its great fun and a journalists dream!
Maybe the 'disenfranchised' Labour supporters need to take a good look at themselves and start listening to the candidates who will give them a fighting chance at the next election. Not some bloke who's a bit different.
The best thing for the Labour party would be for Corbyn to step down and stop the party looking like unelectable village idiots. At least with any of the other three they might have some sort of chance of overturning the Tories. Forget the Miliband disaster, if this bloke is the next leader then it will be a disaster for the party on another scale altogether.
I despair of anyone who feels that this bloke will lead this country one day. The country needs choices, not one choice (Tory) because there is nobody else.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Aug 24, 2015 7:54:39 GMT 1
This 'not a leader' rhetoric is interesting. It's essentially a mantra to be repeated until it becomes true by sheer reinforcement. I've yet to see a genuine argument behind this (for JC or Milliband before him) beyond playground mudslinging of the "he's creepy" or "he's a hippy" variety.
I personally feel people are increasingly wary of the press and, by extension, this sort of nonsense.
LufbraSalop makes some good points though I feel. Definitely a valid note of caution.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 24, 2015 7:56:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 24, 2015 8:10:47 GMT 1
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 24, 2015 10:25:54 GMT 1
This 'not a leader' rhetoric is interesting. It's essentially a mantra to be repeated until it becomes true by sheer reinforcement. I've yet to see a genuine argument behind this (for JC or Milliband before him) beyond playground mudslinging of the "he's creepy" or "he's a hippy" variety. I personally feel people are increasingly wary of the press and, by extension, this sort of nonsense. LufbraSalop makes some good points though I feel. Definitely a valid note of caution. I don't think its rhetoric. He's rebelled against his party leadership 533 times since Labour came to power in 1997, why should anyone in the parliamentary Labour party give him their loyalty? He can go on about having a mandate from the party all he likes, but Blair had a mandate from both the party and the people in 97 and it didn't make a difference to him. I also find it funny that he strongly opposed the removal of shadow cabinet elections under Miliband as its reduced the voice of the parliamentary party yet he has no intention of bringing them back under his leadership precisely because he doesn't want to hear the voice of his parliamentary party, so much for principles! Political leadership is also about compromise, not just within your own party but with the electorate. Its very easy to sound principled when all you've ever done is oppose your whole life, but when he inevitably becomes leader he's going to have to hold together a national political party of varied opinion. If he holds himself to his principles the party will fall apart, if he compromises he'll become a judas to his core support. He's building himself up for a fall.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 24, 2015 14:01:59 GMT 1
This 'not a leader' rhetoric is interesting. It's essentially a mantra to be repeated until it becomes true by sheer reinforcement. I've yet to see a genuine argument behind this (for JC or Milliband before him) beyond playground mudslinging of the "he's creepy" or "he's a hippy" variety. I personally feel people are increasingly wary of the press and, by extension, this sort of nonsense. LufbraSalop makes some good points though I feel. Definitely a valid note of caution. I don't think its rhetoric. He's rebelled against his party leadership 533 times since Labour came to power in 1997, why should anyone in the parliamentary Labour party give him their loyalty? He can go on about having a mandate from the party all he likes, but Blair had a mandate from both the party and the people in 97 and it didn't make a difference to him. I also find it funny that he strongly opposed the removal of shadow cabinet elections under Miliband as its reduced the voice of the parliamentary party yet he has no intention of bringing them back under his leadership precisely because he doesn't want to hear the voice of his parliamentary party, so much for principles! Political leadership is also about compromise, not just within your own party but with the electorate. Its very easy to sound principled when all you've ever done is oppose your whole life, but when he inevitably becomes leader he's going to have to hold together a national political party of varied opinion. If he holds himself to his principles the party will fall apart, if he compromises he'll become a judas to his core support. He's building himself up for a fall. Yep, absolutely not 'rhetoric'. This was the reason why Miliband didn't get in last time and is a very real issue that Labour supporters would do well to heed. Blair was statesmanlike, as was Wilson, and to a lesser extent Callaghan. Brown wasn't, neither was Miliband and neither is Corbyn! This guy could have the best policies and the best ideas ever heard by a British politician, but unless you can convince the electorate of them then you're not going to get those votes! In a General Election those statesmanlike/Leadership factors are possibly the major reasons why people vote the way they do. You only have to look at the results to see that. Floating voters like myself want to see a choice in this country. Preferably a choice of three parties. At the moment there is only one, and even that is a poor one. Sort it out Labour supporters, get Corbyn to step down and give the British public a choice!
|
|
|
Post by buryshrew on Aug 24, 2015 15:13:28 GMT 1
I don't think its rhetoric. He's rebelled against his party leadership 533 times since Labour came to power in 1997, why should anyone in the parliamentary Labour party give him their loyalty? He can go on about having a mandate from the party all he likes, but Blair had a mandate from both the party and the people in 97 and it didn't make a difference to him. I also find it funny that he strongly opposed the removal of shadow cabinet elections under Miliband as its reduced the voice of the parliamentary party yet he has no intention of bringing them back under his leadership precisely because he doesn't want to hear the voice of his parliamentary party, so much for principles! Political leadership is also about compromise, not just within your own party but with the electorate. Its very easy to sound principled when all you've ever done is oppose your whole life, but when he inevitably becomes leader he's going to have to hold together a national political party of varied opinion. If he holds himself to his principles the party will fall apart, if he compromises he'll become a judas to his core support. He's building himself up for a fall. Yep, absolutely not 'rhetoric'. This was the reason why Miliband didn't get in last time and is a very real issue that Labour supporters would do well to heed. Blair was statesmanlike, as was Wilson, and to a lesser extent Callaghan. Brown wasn't, neither was Miliband and neither is Corbyn! This guy could have the best policies and the best ideas ever heard by a British politician, but unless you can convince the electorate of them then you're not going to get those votes! In a General Election those statesmanlike/Leadership factors are possibly the major reasons why people vote the way they do. You only have to look at the results to see that. Floating voters like myself want to see a choice in this country. Preferably a choice of three parties. At the moment there is only one, and even that is a poor one. Sort it out Labour supporters, get Corbyn to step down and give the British public a choice! Agree with your 'statesmanlike' comment, but seriously, are any of the alternatives remotely statesmanlike? As far as I can see they're all a million miles from electability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 18:34:19 GMT 1
Getting eligible labour voters to pick a centrist leader isn't offering a choice is it. They will follow the same economic path for a start.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 24, 2015 19:49:13 GMT 1
Getting eligible labour voters to pick a centrist leader isn't offering a choice is it. They will follow the same economic path for a start. There seems to be an obsession with the need for "real" choice at the moment, but the suggested choices are often stark, left or right extremes. That does't provide a choice, it just gives the vast majority of the electorate one realistic option. I understand the need for dividing lines between parties but it doesn't have to be on every issues, especially when public opinion is significantly for/against a specific issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 20:17:29 GMT 1
Getting eligible labour voters to pick a centrist leader isn't offering a choice is it. They will follow the same economic path for a start. There seems to be an obsession with the need for "real" choice at the moment, but the suggested choices are often stark, left or right extremes. That does't provide a choice, it just gives the vast majority of the electorate one realistic option. I understand the need for dividing lines between parties but it doesn't have to be on every issues, especially when public opinion is significantly for/against a specific issues. Here's the problem. The narrative is about how extreme Corbyn is because politics in this country is middle of the road, maintaining the status quo and be a slave to the markets. Suggest a real alternative and it becomes extreme (left or right). In Corbyn's case it's talk of a socialist nightmare when in fact he's a Social Democrat who offers hope to more people than those peddling and believing the narrative may wish to acknowledge. The obsession (a rather condescending term) with real change is perfectly valid when both major parties are neoliberalists and lots of people are disenfranchised and marginalised because of it.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 24, 2015 20:58:37 GMT 1
There seems to be an obsession with the need for "real" choice at the moment, but the suggested choices are often stark, left or right extremes. That does't provide a choice, it just gives the vast majority of the electorate one realistic option. I understand the need for dividing lines between parties but it doesn't have to be on every issues, especially when public opinion is significantly for/against a specific issues. Here's the problem. The narrative is about how extreme Corbyn is because politics in this country is middle of the road, maintaining the status quo and be a slave to the markets. Suggest a real alternative and it becomes extreme (left or right). In Corbyn's case it's talk of a socialist nightmare when in fact he's a Social Democrat who offers hope to more people than those peddling and believing the narrative may wish to acknowledge. The obsession (a rather condescending term) with real change is perfectly valid when both major parties are neoliberalists and lots of people are disenfranchised and marginalised because of it. Nicko, firstly apologies if you felt obsession was condescending, it just seems to be a common reason given by Corbyn supporters as to why their man will win votes. I believe its flawed because giving people a clear choice when their minds are already made up potentially forces them toward the alternative. I'm not claiming Corbyn's economic policy is extreme, my point was that people don't want a left/right choice, they want the choice that helps them keep their job, keeps their pension safe and ensures the interest rate on their mortgage doesn't go through the roof. Whichever way you look at it, Corbyns economic policy is a risk to that as it represents change and the one thing the Tories have managed to do over the last five years is, by and large, maintain these things. Unless something drastic happens to the economy over the next 5 years i don't believe that's going to change no matter how much the Labour party shout about it.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Aug 24, 2015 22:08:02 GMT 1
I don't think its rhetoric. He's rebelled against his party leadership 533 times since Labour came to power in 1997, why should anyone in the parliamentary Labour party give him their loyalty? He can go on about having a mandate from the party all he likes, but Blair had a mandate from both the party and the people in 97 and it didn't make a difference to him. I also find it funny that he strongly opposed the removal of shadow cabinet elections under Miliband as its reduced the voice of the parliamentary party yet he has no intention of bringing them back under his leadership precisely because he doesn't want to hear the voice of his parliamentary party, so much for principles! Political leadership is also about compromise, not just within your own party but with the electorate. Its very easy to sound principled when all you've ever done is oppose your whole life, but when he inevitably becomes leader he's going to have to hold together a national political party of varied opinion. If he holds himself to his principles the party will fall apart, if he compromises he'll become a judas to his core support. He's building himself up for a fall. Yep, absolutely not 'rhetoric'. This was the reason why Miliband didn't get in last time and is a very real issue that Labour supporters would do well to heed. Blair was statesmanlike, as was Wilson, and to a lesser extent Callaghan. Brown wasn't, neither was Miliband and neither is Corbyn! This guy could have the best policies and the best ideas ever heard by a British politician, but unless you can convince the electorate of them then you're not going to get those votes! In a General Election those statesmanlike/Leadership factors are possibly the major reasons why people vote the way they do. You only have to look at the results to see that. Floating voters like myself want to see a choice in this country. Preferably a choice of three parties. At the moment there is only one, and even that is a poor one. Sort it out Labour supporters, get Corbyn to step down and give the British public a choice! I seem to recall Cameron getting elected and not by a very long shot indeed could you call him statesman like, if his reputation outside of these shores is anything to go by.
|
|