|
Post by mattmw on Aug 24, 2015 22:17:44 GMT 1
If things carry on going pear shaped in China's economy and the fear spreads to the U.S. Markets the British recovery could be in tatters. Some quite respected financial commentators suggesting at least a major stall - if not a full on global recession could be with us by the end of the year
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Aug 24, 2015 23:18:04 GMT 1
I can't believe this. Juan Direction have split up, and all you can talk about is ****ing polly ticks.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Aug 25, 2015 4:47:54 GMT 1
If things carry on going pear shaped in China's economy and the fear spreads to the U.S. Markets the British recovery could be in tatters. Some quite respected financial commentators suggesting at least a major stall - if not a full on global recession could be with us by the end of the year Do you think Boy Wonder Osborne will blame Labour for this as well?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Aug 25, 2015 7:36:19 GMT 1
If things carry on going pear shaped in China's economy and the fear spreads to the U.S. Markets the British recovery could be in tatters. Some quite respected financial commentators suggesting at least a major stall - if not a full on global recession could be with us by the end of the year Do you think Boy Wonder Osborne will blame Labour for this as well? Well it is all down to those bloody commies in China ain't it I bet Corbyn has had lunch with them as well, commie lover
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 25, 2015 12:24:56 GMT 1
Well thank you Lufbrasalop, not only do I need to take a long hard look at myself, as champagne prince has urged, but I am nuts as well.
And now I look at it you must be right. After all, the last election, Labour lost heavily to the anti-austerity SNP in Scotland and also lost lots of votes to the anti-austerity Greens. So it's obvious that to get these votes back, Labour needs a leader who supports austerity, and not someone who opposes it, like Corbyn.
And of course those economists who suggest that anti-austerity, rather than being an ideology, is an alternative approach, are completely nuts as well.
Because true democracy is surely having two main parties with more or less identical platforms, or if you had your wish, three parties all very similar. We can't give the electorate a choice, that would be nuts.
And as for Corbyn's rallies being him preaching to the converted. All those young people? Were they already converted? A few years back when their friends were listening to One Direction and playing Grand Theft Auto, were they listening to Michael Foot speeches and playing pretend politicians? When exactly were they converted?
I do not think you are nuts for your views. I think your posts are well thought out and presented. But you seem to have joined in with the language of the hysterical press, making references to our mental state if we disagree with you: crazy, summer madness, nuts, lunatics, delusional... and many more.
Still at least Mr Corbyn has promised to raise the profile, care and funding of mental health problems. Typical commie swine: looking after the nut cases who voted for him.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 25, 2015 12:54:00 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.
And perhaps this is what the party needs to look at. Out of all the Labour MP's out there surely there is one out there who is statesmanlike and can steer the party to offer an alternative to conservative?
When they're all the same, the General Election just identifies the one who is the least of a wally, even if he is a complete wally himself.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 25, 2015 12:57:03 GMT 1
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.
I agree. But he was more statesmanlike than 'Ed'. And unfortunately for the UK, that's all he needed to be.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 25, 2015 13:04:13 GMT 1
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. Yes, we hear so often that so-and-so's not "statesmanlike" or not a leader. Not sure what criteria are being used to judge that quality but it beggars belief that anyone could imagine Cameron or Osborne to be statesmen. They're no more than office managers, not a shred of real strength or a principle between them. Some people are easily impressed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 14:00:38 GMT 1
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 25, 2015 14:56:28 GMT 1
Well thank you Lufbrasalop, not only do I need to take a long hard look at myself, as champagne prince has urged, but I am nuts as well. And now I look at it you must be right. After all, the last election, Labour lost heavily to the anti-austerity SNP in Scotland and also lost lots of votes to the anti-austerity Greens. So it's obvious that to get these votes back, Labour needs a leader who supports austerity, and not someone who opposes it, like Corbyn. And of course those economists who suggest that anti-austerity, rather than being an ideology, is an alternative approach, are completely nuts as well. Because true democracy is surely having two main parties with more or less identical platforms, or if you had your wish, three parties all very similar. We can't give the electorate a choice, that would be nuts. And as for Corbyn's rallies being him preaching to the converted. All those young people? Were they already converted? A few years back when their friends were listening to One Direction and playing Grand Theft Auto, were they listening to Michael Foot speeches and playing pretend politicians? When exactly were they converted? I do not think you are nuts for your views. I think your posts are well thought out and presented. But you seem to have joined in with the language of the hysterical press, making references to our mental state if we disagree with you: crazy, summer madness, nuts, lunatics, delusional... and many more. Still at least Mr Corbyn has promised to raise the profile, care and funding of mental health problems. Typical commie swine: looking after the nut cases who voted for him. Firstly, again, apologies for 'nuts', perhaps it was a bit too emotive for what on the whole has been a very well mannered debate. However, as I'm sure you're aware i wasn't seriously questioning your mental health for your political views which are by no means mad. My madness was only in reference to thinking that this will sell to the electorate while the current economic policy provides growth. Unfortunately for you and Corbyn this will be the hardest of hard sells; effectively telling people the current "neoliberal" economic policy isn't working when, for many people, it is. Your effectively relying on another crash, which is something no one should hope for (and i'm not suggesting that for one minute you do). You can, like many on the left, tell these people to sod off to the Tories. You'd then, as you suggest, need to win over left wing voters. Except that, if every Green and SNP voter in the 2015 election had voted Labour, the party would be on 300 seats still 21 short of the Tories (who would fall to 321 seats). Now lets think about this, if you're Scottish and you voted for the SNP, your pretty much bought into independence. Why would you jump to a Corbyn Labour party when his is a broadly similar platform but without the potential for independence? The assumption would then be that all of the dissatisfied people around the land that have never really voted before will come out for Corbyn. This is a massive and pretty baseless assumption (and please please show me the evidence that these people could and would sway the 2020 election if you have it). There are many dissatisfied people that don't vote in the UK. Many of these people just don't care and will never care. Others are dissatisfied with the political class, but crucially they aren't all on the left and they may believe in the political extremes that, hopefully, none of major parties will pander too. Many dissatisfied voters are as fed up with the bloke falsely claiming benefits down the street as they are with the greedy banker in the city, and all they will see from Corbyn is protection for one and a beating for the other under the banner of social justice. To them he won't be breaking the status quo, he'll be maintaining it. Therefore, there may be as many dissatisfied voters who would be compelled to vote against Corbyn as for him, we just don't know and its a massive leap (hence my poorly chosen 'mad' comment) to assume that would happen.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 25, 2015 18:32:24 GMT 1
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. Yes, we hear so often that so-and-so's not "statesmanlike" or not a leader. Not sure what criteria are being used to judge that quality but it beggars belief that anyone could imagine Cameron or Osborne to be statesmen. They're no more than office managers, not a shred of real strength or a principle between them. Some people are easily impressed. Yes, but "easily impressed" against whom? There were only two options in the last election and there will only be two options in the next one! Cameron won because he was more statesmanlike than Miliband, not because he is a great statesman! And let's not forget statesmanlike is different to being an actual effective statesman. It's about how your portray yourself to the public and how they perceive you. League table of most statesmanlike Prime Ministers and opposition leaders in the last 40 years ? (my view, feel free to add your own) Maggie Thatcher Tony Blair Harold Wilson Jim Callaghan William Hague David Cameron John Major Neil Kinnock Gordon Brown Ed Miliband Nick Clegg Michael Howard Michael Foot
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 16:56:20 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.
And perhaps this is what the party needs to look at. Out of all the Labour MP's out there surely there is one out there who is statesmanlike...
Or maybe one that just doesn't talk in soundbites, explains things patiently, is open to consultation and doesn't look like a middle manager for a call centre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 17:11:15 GMT 1
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. It's fine. I'm not a Labour supporter. It'seems just interesting that the discourse is littered with terms like 'obsession', 'nuts', 'crazy' and other derogatory words from the anti-Corbyn camp. Another way the discourse is being framed is by continually referring to it as a choice between the centre ground and the hard left. This is utter nonsense and doesn't do justice to a wider debate about the disenfranchised and the disadvantaged. As Sean from Broseley often remarks those who control the cognitive map can make people believe anything. This includes being scared for your job if a Socially Democratic government should come to power.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 26, 2015 20:42:24 GMT 1
And perhaps this is what the party needs to look at. Out of all the Labour MP's out there surely there is one out there who is statesmanlike...
Or maybe one that just doesn't talk in soundbites, explains things patiently, is open to consultation and doesn't look like a middle manager for a call centre. Yes I agree, those would all be good PM traits to have. However, you could have all those and still be 'un-statesmanlike' and come Election day that is the bit that sells you, and ultimately your party. If you want to be PM, you need to appeal to the masses more than the next bloke. It's a straight head-to-head in the minds of the public. Four years ago it was between three! But now it's just back to the two again :-( Corbyn, might have an initial impact where his 'new approach' appeals to many, maybe even wins a few over who sit-on-the-fence, and everything appears great in the Corbyn New, New, Labour world. But come Election day............ If Labour choose Corbyn then they really haven't learnt a lot about how to get into power. Any of the other leadership candidates might have a chance, especially if Tories cock their own imminent leadership battle up and/or another recession bites hard. A golden chance for Labour? But no chance with Corbyn!
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 26, 2015 22:59:53 GMT 1
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. It's fine. I'm not a Labour supporter. It'seems just interesting that the discourse is littered with terms like 'obsession', 'nuts', 'crazy' and other derogatory words from the anti-Corbyn camp. Another way the discourse is being framed is by continually referring to it as a choice between the centre ground and the hard left. This is utter nonsense and doesn't do justice to a wider debate about the disenfranchised and the disadvantaged. As Sean from Broseley often remarks those who control the cognitive map can make people believe anything. This includes being scared for your job if a Socially Democratic government should come to power. I think if you look around the internet there's plenty of derogatory remarks from both sides, although I agree that some of the scare stories are ridiculous and have been counter productive. My point wasn't specifically about a fear of Social Democracy, it's a fear of change full stop. It would be the same if a Conservative opposition focused on an austerity package against the backdrop of a Socially Democratic government achieving economic growth. This would clearly be putting ideology above something that is perceived to be working, and unless something drastic happens, the electorate will think the same of Corbyn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 6:33:45 GMT 1
We've all bemoaned the role of spin doctors in modern politics, and the victory of style over substance. Yet here we are debating the need for a leader to appear statesman like.
Are policies important? I've only glanced really but we don't seems to be discussing corbyns policies too much, more about how he's perceived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 7:34:42 GMT 1
It's fine. I'm not a Labour supporter. It'seems just interesting that the discourse is littered with terms like 'obsession', 'nuts', 'crazy' and other derogatory words from the anti-Corbyn camp. Another way the discourse is being framed is by continually referring to it as a choice between the centre ground and the hard left. This is utter nonsense and doesn't do justice to a wider debate about the disenfranchised and the disadvantaged. As Sean from Broseley often remarks those who control the cognitive map can make people believe anything. This includes being scared for your job if a Socially Democratic government should come to power. I think if you look around the internet there's plenty of derogatory remarks from both sides, although I agree that some of the scare stories are ridiculous and have been counter productive. My point wasn't specifically about a fear of Social Democracy, it's a fear of change full stop. It would be the same if a Conservative opposition focused on an austerity package against the backdrop of a Socially Democratic government achieving economic growth. This would clearly be putting ideology above something that is perceived to be working, and unless something drastic happens, the electorate will think the same of Corbyn. The Internet is mainly full of . Look at Mensch. I'm specifically talking about the discourse from the PLP.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 27, 2015 8:54:39 GMT 1
I think if you look around the internet there's plenty of derogatory remarks from both sides, although I agree that some of the scare stories are ridiculous and have been counter productive. My point wasn't specifically about a fear of Social Democracy, it's a fear of change full stop. It would be the same if a Conservative opposition focused on an austerity package against the backdrop of a Socially Democratic government achieving economic growth. This would clearly be putting ideology above something that is perceived to be working, and unless something drastic happens, the electorate will think the same of Corbyn. The Internet is mainly full of . Look at Mensch. I'm specifically talking about the discourse from the PLP. To be fair the PLP is full of individuals that have committed their lives to trying to make a difference to the communities they represent. I can understand some of the reaction if they feel that making that difference is far less likely under Corbyn. However, talk of stopping the election is counter productive. The Corbyn genie is already out of the bottle and they've just got to let this run its course instead of bleating about an election which, to the public, looks entirely fair. I'd hate for the Labour party to be pulled apart by this, partly due to the loss of a major political force and partly because it would give the Corbyn leadership a reason for any failure. If he wins, let Corbyn put his policies to the electorate and see how he does. Matron, without getting into the statesmen debate, isn't politics as much about perception and convincing the general public as it is about policy? If you have a policy that you believe in but no substantive electoral support, you'll never be able to enact that policy. I'm all for politicians making a case when public opinion is mixed or marginally against (something we don't see enough of), but how will you convince the public when circumstance (e.g. economic growth) and opinion (e.g. the deficit is very important, austerity has not, economically, been a disaster) is stacked against you? Now i'm by no means saying just copy the Tories, but you have to pick your battles, politics is as much about that as is it about policy.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 27, 2015 15:47:04 GMT 1
We've all bemoaned the role of spin doctors in modern politics, and the victory of style over substance. Yet here we are debating the need for a leader to appear statesman like. Are policies important? I've only glanced really but we don't seems to be discussing corbyns policies too much, more about how he's perceived. But that's just it. He could have the greatest policies in the world, the best ideas in the history of British politics ever, but if he isn't statesmanlike then he's still not getting in to Number Ten! Do you really think the public will elect Corbyn to be the next Prime Minister of this country?
|
|
|
Post by TheFoz on Aug 27, 2015 16:46:11 GMT 1
I bet a significant amount of people didn't vote for Ed Miliband purely because of the way he eats a bacon sandwich or that "he was not a leader" etc etc or whatever they read on the front on some papers.
It's pretty tragic that this happens but it does. I know numerous people who voted for Cameron where I live and I asked them "why didn't you vote for Miliband?". A lot of the response was like "we can't have that muppet in charge of our country" and then I'd ask "what about his policies?" and most would be clueless as to what they were.
If Corbyn gets elected then he will get absolutely slaughtered in the right wing media and it will sadly influence how people vote. Burnham would be harder to bring down but I think Corbyn is well worth a gamble.
People are fed up of politics and if people think someone like Farage is a refreshing change then think what impact Corbyn could do.
Corbyn or Burnham get in then I will be happy either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 17:14:13 GMT 1
We've all bemoaned the role of spin doctors in modern politics, and the victory of style over substance. Yet here we are debating the need for a leader to appear statesman like. Are policies important? I've only glanced really but we don't seems to be discussing corbyns policies too much, more about how he's perceived. But that's just it. He could have the greatest policies in the world, the best ideas in the history of British politics ever, but if he isn't statesmanlike then he's still not getting in to Number Ten! Do you really think the public will elect Corbyn to be the next Prime Minister of this country? Probably not. But then a lot depends on what his actual policies will be at the next election (I'm thinking they surely must be important in some way) and how well he and the party can sell it! Let's be honest, as much depends on the mood of Murdoch and his ilk as anything else! We've seen the vicious and spiteful story being laid out by the daily mail. How many of the electorate will be dumb enough to fall for it? So many obstacles. His personality and presentation are pretty minor by comparison!
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 27, 2015 18:38:03 GMT 1
To LubfraSalop: Thank you for your apology regarding the state of my mental health, although there may be some who agree with your original assessment! But one thing this election, and the reaction to Corbyn has shown is that there is not a rizla paper between the Tories, the Press and the right wing of the Labour party. Why the Labour party do not want to harness and cultivate the surge of interest from the voters of the future, I do not understand. Well I do. They would probably prefer to be in opposition than take on the Corporate World. www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/aug/04/why-young-people-are-rallying-behind-jeremy-corbyn-videoThis video should inspire Labour.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 27, 2015 19:20:27 GMT 1
I have just read your league table of statesmanlike Prime Ministers and Opposition Leaders, ChampagnePrince... and I think I have just lost the will to live.
I would have thought Ted Heath should have been there: but even with him ... oh dear.
And the top two... Thatcher and Blair!
If that is what you get when you order "statesmanlike" ... I'll order something else.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 27, 2015 19:35:22 GMT 1
Thanks Matron:
newsthump.com/2015/08/25/calls-to-postpone-leadership-contest-after-suspicions-labour-infiltrated-by-labour-supporters/
That put a smile on my face to break the strain of scouring news and Twitter feeds to see if Ryan has left us yet. But it was also so horribly true.
Mind you, watching little Dina Asher-Smith in her 200m semifinal also made me smile, so maybe I have found the will to live again.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Aug 27, 2015 20:43:23 GMT 1
Statesmanlike as defined as defined by whom?
Cameron is a proven liar.
If we're using clothing, facial hair (or lack thereof) and accent as our barometer of respectability then I think it's time for a big rethink.
Or a revolution of consciousness as someone put it...
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 27, 2015 21:19:43 GMT 1
To LubfraSalop: Thank you for your apology regarding the state of my mental health, although there may be some who agree with your original assessment! But one thing this election, and the reaction to Corbyn has shown is that there is not a rizla paper between the Tories, the Press and the right wing of the Labour party. Why the Labour party do not want to harness and cultivate the surge of interest from the voters of the future, I do not understand. Well I do. They would probably prefer to be in opposition than take on the Corporate World. www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/aug/04/why-young-people-are-rallying-behind-jeremy-corbyn-videoThis video should inspire Labour. I disagree about the right wing of the Labour Party, I think if you look at what Liz Kendall is proposing particularly on early years eduction, its miles away from closing Sure Start centres. I think she's been pretty brave (unlike Copper and Burnham) in telling people what they don't want to hear. She just believes that everything needs to be costed as the general public have lost faith in Labours economic prowess (which is undoubtably true). In Corbyns case we're just going to find £120 billion in unpaid tax from under the sofa (which when Richard Murphy was questioned turned into £20 billion which again seems to be unsubstanciaated). Unfortunately, its easy to tell people what they want to hear but very difficult to deliver it. Perhaps the candidates with ministerial experience are understandably a little more wary of this than Corbyn. The video is as much about the fact the Corbyn is a good guy who sticks to his principles and is uncritical of his opposition (vey much like Michael Foot). These are wonderful attributes which many of our politicians should take note of and are no doubt true, but it doesn't turn his policies into a successful reality or make him right.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 27, 2015 23:35:56 GMT 1
"A revolution of consciousness"
I like that Shrewsace. Do you know who did coin that.
Only if it was Lenin or Karl Marx... don't say so... we're in enough trouble.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Aug 28, 2015 0:12:37 GMT 1
Corbyn is undoubtedly a change from the verbal trickery employed by all the other politicians - he answers a question or says that he won't - that the public like; but honesty can only get you so far.
When it comes to policies and the man we encounter a problem - he is clearly not one for being pragmatic and accepting the views of others. When this is excercised to the point of his marriage breaking up "solely" because of a disagreement about sending his kid to the local comprehensive then it is a problem.
I confess that I agree with many of the policies seen as unsound by the press like re-nationalisation and spending on infrastructure to stimulate growth but there are others that he supports with equal vigour that set him beyond the moderate left (which I consider myself to be). Firmly held views Corbyn has about supporting armed struggles I find morally unacceptable and hypocritical given his stance on national defence. If he won't give up his views on the local comp to save his marriage what chance he will drop his values to reflect the views of the nation ?
My father was a Bennite, as a youth I supported Michael Foot - however, I can see the benefit of a Tony Blair who maybe not as principled but gets more done for the good because he is prepared to be pragmatic and listen to the people (Iraq excepted of course).
We need to stop thinking of Corbyn as a potential leader but consider what made him popular - simplicity, honesty and openness - as well as what made Blair popular - listening and pragmatism + In this day and age good hair and teeth are undoubtedly important too.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 28, 2015 1:26:40 GMT 1
I bet a significant amount of people didn't vote for Ed Miliband purely because of the way he eats a bacon sandwich or that "he was not a leader" etc etc or whatever they read on the front on some papers. It's pretty tragic that this happens but it does. I know numerous people who voted for Cameron where I live and I asked them "why didn't you vote for Miliband?". A lot of the response was like "we can't have that muppet in charge of our country" and then I'd ask "what about his policies?" and most would be clueless as to what they were. If Corbyn gets elected then he will get absolutely slaughtered in the right wing media and it will sadly influence how people vote. Burnham would be harder to bring down but I think Corbyn is well worth a gamble. People are fed up of politics and if people think someone like Farage is a refreshing change then think what impact Corbyn could do. Corbyn or Burnham get in then I will be happy either way. Again, that's just it. Corbyn will be seen as a refreshing change, but come election day the masses won't vote for him! So what's the point in Labour supporters voting for him now? Everything you say is spot on, that's exactly how it is. But Corbyn isn't going to be the answer to beating the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 28, 2015 1:54:54 GMT 1
Statesmanlike as defined as defined by whom? Cameron is a proven liar. If we're using clothing, facial hair (or lack thereof) and accent as our barometer of respectability then I think it's time for a big rethink. Or a revolution of consciousness as someone put it... Statesmanlike doesn't need to be defined by anybody. The masses don't understand politics, in fact it bores most of them to tears. Same old bulls**t blah, blah, blah, Zzzzzzz......When it comes to the crunch they vote for who appears most stable versus a choice of two. Yes it is time for a rethink, because you are exactly right that this is how the masses think. If Labour supporters want a chance of their party governing this country again then they need to understand that the masses do not put policies ahead of everything else, in fact they don't put them that high up at all. Unless, of course they are not too difficult to understand, like: - Unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons. The masses understand this and come the day, Corbyn will be lucky to get even one vote in the ballot box. In fact he might even change it himself! It would be great to ditch Trident and spend the cash on much needier causes but the masses secretly like the fact that we can blow anyone up that we want. It's that feeling of security, even if it is misguided and a bit bonkers. Actually the masses will probably just stop at that one. It won't matter about any great ideas he might have, his killer blow to himself is in that one thing. Oh and apparently he doesn't like the idea of a monarchy. That's really going to go down well! But the biggest thing in the eyes of the masses is that he looks like a stressed out Worzel Gummidge applying for a job as a librarian. -
|
|