|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 28, 2015 1:56:47 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. Do you think Michael Foot was more statesmanlike than Thatcher or Blair then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 7:25:36 GMT 1
Without trying to quote multiple people.
Corbyn is a proven pragmatic politician and has gone on record to say that he will work with all sections of the party. He's not an idiot.
There's a difference between pursuing a foreign war due to dodgy evidence and national defence.
The railways are heavily subsidised already, it's a short step to renationalisation.
People will vote according to and be influenced by the media. So if enough of the media say that Corbyn is a hardcore Marxist then enough people will believe it.
I doubt his marriage broke up just because of the school he sent his son to.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 28, 2015 9:53:53 GMT 1
Without trying to quote multiple people. Corbyn is a proven pragmatic politician and has gone on record to say that he will work with all sections of the party. He's not an idiot. There's a difference between pursuing a foreign war due to dodgy evidence and national defence. The railways are heavily subsidised already, it's a short step to renationalisation. People will vote according to and be influenced by the media. So if enough of the media say that Corbyn is a hardcore Marxist then enough people will believe it. I doubt his marriage broke up just because of the school he sent his son to. Rebelling over 500 times against your own party doesn't shout proven pragmatic politician to me. How many of his current followers will he let down if he does become pragmatic, seeing as many have cited his principles as his USP? The issues around national defence have nothing to do with Iraq, its his backing of virtually every anti american regime. From Venezuela to Russia, it seems to be the Americans fault and his opinions on Ukraine are verging on conspiracy theory. An essential part of our national defence is our membership of Nato and he would put this at serious jeopardy. I think there would be widespread backing of a renationalisation of the railways, but not without investor compensation which would undermine investor confidence and hit pension pots. Finally, thats exactly how his marriage broke down: www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 28, 2015 10:34:14 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. Do you think Michael Foot was more statesmanlike than Thatcher or Blair then? Of course I don't. That was not what I meant. My point is that if you make so called statesmanship your number one criteria, that is what you get... Blair and Thatcher! But reading that list is pretty depressing. It doesn't take too much to top that league. So let the buyer beware: statesmanship does not result in good and well-loved Prime Ministers.
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Aug 28, 2015 12:53:23 GMT 1
Do you think Michael Foot was more statesmanlike than Thatcher or Blair then? Of course I don't. That was not what I meant. My point is that if you make so called statesmanship your number one criteria, that is what you get... Blair and Thatcher! But reading that list is pretty depressing. It doesn't take too much to top that league. So let the buyer beware: statesmanship does not result in good and well-loved Prime Ministers. Apols, messageboard misunderstanding! Yes I agree, it is depressing reading. However that's the reality of the situation and the reason why Labour supporters should be against the Corbyn vote. If they want to continue being an opposition party after the next election then vote for Corbyn. If they want to be in government, then vote for somebody else, at least you might have a fighting chance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 17:53:44 GMT 1
Without trying to quote multiple people. Corbyn is a proven pragmatic politician and has gone on record to say that he will work with all sections of the party. He's not an idiot. There's a difference between pursuing a foreign war due to dodgy evidence and national defence. The railways are heavily subsidised already, it's a short step to renationalisation. People will vote according to and be influenced by the media. So if enough of the media say that Corbyn is a hardcore Marxist then enough people will believe it. I doubt his marriage broke up just because of the school he sent his son to. Rebelling over 500 times against your own party doesn't shout proven pragmatic politician to me. How many of his current followers will he let down if he does become pragmatic, seeing as many have cited his principles as his USP? The issues around national defence have nothing to do with Iraq, its his backing of virtually every anti american regime. From Venezuela to Russia, it seems to be the Americans fault and his opinions on Ukraine are verging on conspiracy theory. An essential part of our national defence is our membership of Nato and he would put this at serious jeopardy. I think there would be widespread backing of a renationalisation of the railways, but not without investor compensation which would undermine investor confidence and hit pension pots. Finally, thats exactly how his marriage broke down: www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2Being a back bench MP allows him to vote with his conscience, or heaven forbid, how a majority of his constituents would like him to vote. His pragmatism is shown in talking to disparate groups in the middle east for in the interests of peace. Before you accuse him of talking to terrorist, etc, remember successive UK governments have engaged the IRA in attempts to broker peace. As for defence, even those on the right have criticised NATO's encroachment into the former Warsaw Pact. It actually breaks an agreement that was brokered post German reunification. In return for that event NATO would go beyond Germany's border, there is plenty of stuff written about this and it'seems not a conspiracy theory, another derogatory turn of phrase by the way. As for the rest Venezuela, I don'the know enough about the Socialist regime, but I know enough that the Americans wouldn't want that in their back yard. Unofficial empire and all that.... As for his divorce. I'm well aware of the linked article because every anti-Corbyn blog, tweet, article, post, discussion has mentioned it. It says the issue of the school was a key element in the divorce. I said I doubt that it was the sole reason. I'm right, it was only part of the reason.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Aug 28, 2015 22:01:54 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. - People must have a definition of 'statesmanlike' in mind when they use the word, surely, even if its a rather amorphous one? Anyway, I follow what you're saying - in fact I broadly agree with it. But I'm taking the more optimistic view that if Corbyn can turn Labour into a more participatory and democratic movement then perhaps the tide of ignorance and stupidity can be reversed somewhat!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 5:29:41 GMT 1
Doubt it Shrewsace . Rebecca Brooks is about to return as News Corp chef. Cameron will have his old chum back , welcoming her with an invite to enjoy the odd drink or two with him and their mutual friends ( and we all know who they are ) . In return our Becks will be supporting her friend in any way she can ( perhaps preparing the ground for an eventual elevation to the House Of Lords ) . The tide of ignorance and stupidity reversed did you say . No way, even if Corbyn can turn Labour into a more participatory and democratic movement Brooks won't be reporting favourably . The power of the press, as you well know, can be a dangerous tool in the hands of some .
p.s. I hear she is very good at destroying e mails , can get rid of millions of em in no time at all . I wonder why ?
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on Aug 29, 2015 9:25:53 GMT 1
Rebelling over 500 times against your own party doesn't shout proven pragmatic politician to me. How many of his current followers will he let down if he does become pragmatic, seeing as many have cited his principles as his USP? The issues around national defence have nothing to do with Iraq, its his backing of virtually every anti american regime. From Venezuela to Russia, it seems to be the Americans fault and his opinions on Ukraine are verging on conspiracy theory. An essential part of our national defence is our membership of Nato and he would put this at serious jeopardy. I think there would be widespread backing of a renationalisation of the railways, but not without investor compensation which would undermine investor confidence and hit pension pots. Finally, thats exactly how his marriage broke down: www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2Being a back bench MP allows him to vote with his conscience, or heaven forbid, how a majority of his constituents would like him to vote. His pragmatism is shown in talking to disparate groups in the middle east for in the interests of peace. Before you accuse him of talking to terrorist, etc, remember successive UK governments have engaged the IRA in attempts to broker peace. As for defence, even those on the right have criticised NATO's encroachment into the former Warsaw Pact. It actually breaks an agreement that was brokered post German reunification. In return for that event NATO would go beyond Germany's border, there is plenty of stuff written about this and it'seems not a conspiracy theory, another derogatory turn of phrase by the way. As for the rest Venezuela, I don'the know enough about the Socialist regime, but I know enough that the Americans wouldn't want that in their back yard. Unofficial empire and all that.... As for his divorce. I'm well aware of the linked article because every anti-Corbyn blog, tweet, article, post, discussion has mentioned it. It says the issue of the school was a key element in the divorce. I said I doubt that it was the sole reason. I'm right, it was only part of the reason. Oh yes Corbyn the peace broker, thats a clear sign of his pragmatism, except he's never actually brokered peace, he voted against the good Friday agreement and he only seems to talk to one side. How many meetings has he had with hard liners from Israel or the protestant community in Northern Ireland where he described them, diplomatically of course, as friends? Corbyn isn't a diplomatic peace broker, he wants to give the underdog a voice, wherever they may be and however they conflict with his own morality. I can understand how that might appeal, but its not brokering peace. As far as i'm aware (and please post some evidence if you have it) Ukrainian membership of NATO wasn't on the table until Russian military intervention when, quite understandably, they wanted some international support to protect their own borders. Conspiracy theory is defined as "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event". Read this article, written by Corbyn and draw your own conclusions, but i won't apologise for that one. www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-972b-Nato-belligerence-endangers-us-all#.VeFmUha5duYA few quotes; "The EU and Nato have now become the tools of US policy in Europe", "The far-right is now sitting in government in Ukraine" (Far right parties actually did pretty badly in the 2014 elections by hey). He also references a statement made in 1992 by someone no longer a part of the US administration as proof of US expansionism and suggests that NATOs involvement in the former Yugoslavia was 'grim' and in the same category as Iraq (perhaps because he voted against it at the time). The suggestion that Russia has been provoked is also at odds with his opinions on Iraq. Surely, if very limited Western involvement in Ukraine is provocative, what about the non compliance of UN resolutions by Iraq? He would never come close to suggesting that was provocative, even if he did disagree with the conflict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 10:21:52 GMT 1
Being a back bench MP allows him to vote with his conscience, or heaven forbid, how a majority of his constituents would like him to vote. His pragmatism is shown in talking to disparate groups in the middle east for in the interests of peace. Before you accuse him of talking to terrorist, etc, remember successive UK governments have engaged the IRA in attempts to broker peace. As for defence, even those on the right have criticised NATO's encroachment into the former Warsaw Pact. It actually breaks an agreement that was brokered post German reunification. In return for that event NATO would go beyond Germany's border, there is plenty of stuff written about this and it'seems not a conspiracy theory, another derogatory turn of phrase by the way. As for the rest Venezuela, I don'the know enough about the Socialist regime, but I know enough that the Americans wouldn't want that in their back yard. Unofficial empire and all that.... As for his divorce. I'm well aware of the linked article because every anti-Corbyn blog, tweet, article, post, discussion has mentioned it. It says the issue of the school was a key element in the divorce. I said I doubt that it was the sole reason. I'm right, it was only part of the reason. Oh yes Corbyn the peace broker, thats a clear sign of his pragmatism, except he's never actually brokered peace, he voted against the good Friday agreement and he only seems to talk to one side. How many meetings has he had with hard liners from Israel or the protestant community in Northern Ireland where he described them, diplomatically of course, as friends? Corbyn isn't a diplomatic peace broker, he wants to give the underdog a voice, wherever they may be and however they conflict with his own morality. I can understand how that might appeal, but its not brokering peace. As far as i'm aware (and please post some evidence if you have it) Ukrainian membership of NATO wasn't on the table until Russian military intervention when, quite understandably, they wanted some international support to protect their own borders. Conspiracy theory is defined as "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event". Read this article, written by Corbyn and draw your own conclusions, but i won't apologise for that one. www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-972b-Nato-belligerence-endangers-us-all#.VeFmUha5duYA few quotes; "The EU and Nato have now become the tools of US policy in Europe", "The far-right is now sitting in government in Ukraine" (Far right parties actually did pretty badly in the 2014 elections by hey). He also references a statement made in 1992 by someone no longer a part of the US administration as proof of US expansionism and suggests that NATOs involvement in the former Yugoslavia was 'grim' and in the same category as Iraq (perhaps because he voted against it at the time). The suggestion that Russia has been provoked is also at odds with his opinions on Iraq. Surely, if very limited Western involvement in Ukraine is provocative, what about the non compliance of UN resolutions by Iraq? He would never come close to suggesting that was provocative, even if he did disagree with the conflict. Firstly, I didn't say he had brokered any peace did I? I said in the interest of peace. He sat down with groups who don't normally get a voice to better understand what's going on. To use the term underdog simplifies the argument. Secondly, I don't know how to post links on my ipad. Like I said, one of the conditions of German reunification was no eastern expansion of NATO. By 1999, Poland had joined. There is some debate about whether this agreement actually existed, but most geopolitical commentators and analyst's agree that the expansion has caused today's problems. The roots of the Ukrainian situation are based in the 90s. Mark Mazower states in 'The Dark Continent' that capitalism won the Cold War, with its deep roots in the Marshall Plan. It's not much of a leap to suggest then that the neoliberal EU is an economic tool of the US, with NATO as its protective arm. It will be interesting to see how TTIP further enables US policy. You see the context for his comments? That Morning Star article in dated April 14, Svoboda didn't lose their three government ministers until October/November 14.
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 29, 2015 12:34:03 GMT 1
Lufbra asks:
"How many meetings has he had with hard liners from Israel?"
Well of course he hasn't; firstly he wasn't ministerial, and secondly, he wouldn't have been invited to.
Israel's hard liners only meet with people who will not criticise them, other than the occasional call for restraint and the odd slap on the wrist that wouldn't make a toddler cry.
Blair... now he's their sort of man. Oodles of meetings with him... lots of photo calls... luv-ins... declarations of support... no matter what. But of course nothing changes. Keep on the with the occupation, the destruction, the killing, the blockades, the checkpoints, the broken bones, the walls, the land grabs, the water grabs. Don't worry Ben, we may sometimes have to make the odd noises off... but be sure that HM Government is behind you all the way.
And any other negotiation is pointless. They won't shift; they can't shift. They believe they have a God-given right to the land and they are hardly going to invite Corbyn, or anybody else who disagrees with them, to argue with them when they are backed by God.
Heaven's above, they block Jewish critics such as Chomsky or Finkelstein, so why would they invite in owd-jezza. So I think it's a bit disingenuous to attack him for not meeting them. He'd have more chance of setting up a meeting with Darth Vader.
It is simple: no negotiations; no compromises; no Two-State solution; continued encroachment. Accept no criticism, and if it comes, accuse the perpetrator of Anti-Semitism.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Aug 29, 2015 13:18:04 GMT 1
Doubt it Shrewsace . Rebecca Brooks is about to return as News Corp chef. Cameron will have his old chum back , welcoming her with an invite to enjoy the odd drink or two with him and their mutual friends ( and we all know who they are ) . In return our Becks will be supporting her friend in any way she can ( perhaps preparing the ground for an eventual elevation to the House Of Lords ) . The tide of ignorance and stupidity reversed did you say . No way, even if Corbyn can turn Labour into a more participatory and democratic movement Brooks won't be reporting favourably . The power of the press, as you well know, can be a dangerous tool in the hands of some . p.s. I hear she is very good at destroying e mails , can get rid of millions of em in no time at all . I wonder why ? That's more the tide of corruption!
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on May 5, 2017 18:43:01 GMT 1
So, how are the Labour faithful feeling about Corbyn now? Still the best the party has, or will you be glad to get rid?
For a floating voter like me he's doomed us all to another 5 years of Tory rule hasn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Matster on May 5, 2017 18:57:27 GMT 1
The Tory strength will see off Ukip and will get shot of Corbyn after the general election. However that means a stronger hold and less opposition for next 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by SouthStandShrew on May 5, 2017 19:47:32 GMT 1
I'm proud of this City has overwhelmingly voted in a Labour mayor.
Good news for Manchester here, we'd rather have a Scouser here than a Tory, even Sean Anstee got rejected in 'leafy' Trafford.
For some reason the Tees Valley (whatever that is) elected a conservative mayor.
Luckily the Conservatives are known for caring about the North East.
That's why it's known for having lots of jobs available.
You reap what you sow.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 5, 2017 20:12:11 GMT 1
I'm proud of this City has overwhelmingly voted in a Labour mayor. Good news for Manchester here, we'd rather have a Scouser here than a Tory, even Sean Anstee got rejected in 'leafy' Trafford. For some reason the Tees Valley (whatever that is) elected a conservative mayor. Luckily the Conservatives are known for caring about the North East. That's why it's known for having lots of jobs available. You reap what you sow. Much good the 'caring' Labour Party has done for the the north-east, or any other industrial areas which have hitherto slavishly elected people wearing red rosettes. Like you said 'you reap what you sow'.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 5, 2017 20:51:13 GMT 1
So, how are the Labour faithful feeling about Corbyn now? Still the best the party has, or will you be glad to get rid? For a floating voter like me he's doomed us all to another 5 years of Tory rule hasn't he? The PLP has to take its, in my opinion not insignificant, share of the blame in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 5, 2017 21:17:10 GMT 1
The PLP created this 'Frankenstein' primarily due to the stupidity of Ed Miliband.
I'm not sure they are now able to sort it out given the level of entryist support for Comrade Jezza and his 'brownshirts' in Momentum.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 5, 2017 21:33:50 GMT 1
The PLP created this 'Frankenstein' primarily due to the stupidity of Ed Miliband. I'm not sure they are now able to sort it out given the level of entryist support for Comrade Jezza and his 'brownshirts' in Momentum. The irony being that the whole thing was a sop to the right of the party in a bid to weaken trade union influence/power.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 6, 2017 0:41:31 GMT 1
So, how are the Labour faithful feeling about Corbyn now? Still the best the party has, or will you be glad to get rid? For a floating voter like me he's doomed us all to another 5 years of Tory rule hasn't he? Being an extremist - although not a fanatic - I'm content. It is the PLP as a whole that concerns me. 1) Allowing the Blair-Brown Punch and Judy nonsense to carry on for so long that it stifled the emergence of the next generation of leaders. 2) Driving the change of the rules for leadership election without then thinking how that changed the game. 3) Running utterly inept leadership campaigns twice in opposition to Corbyn. 4) A swathe of MPs sitting on their hands on the back benches even to the point of the Opposition being unable to fill shadow posts. 5) The manner in which MPs are happy to write articles in the press to attack Corbyn. 6) The antics leading to the second leadership election. The rest of the party has more idea than the PLP - and are getting on with the task - including helping new members to get involved and take on new responsibilities.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 6, 2017 6:55:13 GMT 1
So, how are the Labour faithful feeling about Corbyn now? Still the best the party has, or will you be glad to get rid? For a floating voter like me he's doomed us all to another 5 years of Tory rule hasn't he? Being an extremist - although not a fanatic - I'm content. It is the PLP as a whole that concerns me. 1) Allowing the Blair-Brown Punch and Judy nonsense to carry on for so long that it stifled the emergence of the next generation of leaders. 2) Driving the change of the rules for leadership election without then thinking how that changed the game. 3) Running utterly inept leadership campaigns twice in opposition to Corbyn. 4) A swathe of MPs sitting on their hands on the back benches even to the point of the Opposition being unable to fill shadow posts. 5) The manner in which MPs are happy to write articles in the press to attack Corbyn. 6) The antics leading to the second leadership election. The rest of the party has more idea than the PLP - and are getting on with the task - including helping new members to get involved and take on new responsibilities. ^This. Corbyns task is to win the party, not this election. Which we all know is a foregone conclusion and always was.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 6, 2017 7:09:12 GMT 1
So, how are the Labour faithful feeling about Corbyn now? Still the best the party has, or will you be glad to get rid? For a floating voter like me he's doomed us all to another 5 years of Tory rule hasn't he? Being an extremist - although not a fanatic - I'm content. It is the PLP as a whole that concerns me. 1) Allowing the Blair-Brown Punch and Judy nonsense to carry on for so long that it stifled the emergence of the next generation of leaders. 2) Driving the change of the rules for leadership election without then thinking how that changed the game. 3) Running utterly inept leadership campaigns twice in opposition to Corbyn. 4) A swathe of MPs sitting on their hands on the back benches even to the point of the Opposition being unable to fill shadow posts. 5) The manner in which MPs are happy to write articles in the press to attack Corbyn. 6) The antics leading to the second leadership election. The rest of the party has more idea than the PLP - and are getting on with the task - including helping new members to get involved and take on new responsibilities. Agree with a number of those points. However, there is a level of hypocracy from those that credit Corbyn for being principled, through his criticism of previous leaderships, whilst expecting all other MPs to slavishly follow his lead. This was the car crash waiting to happen and it should have been as obvious to Corbyn as anyone else that his leadership would never bring unity, perhaps that's never what he wanted? To criticise the PLP for being honest strikes me as the opposisite of what the public at large want. They want unity, purpose and integrity, which Corbyn can't deliver. Couldn't agree more about the lack of other candidates being a significant factor. The first leadership election was more a "none of the above" vote than a resounding vote for Corbyn himself and then to pitch someone with effectively the same policy platform so soon afterwards was a joke. They also need to stop blocking the McDonnell amendment. The right/centre of the party need to beat the left in a straight fight, not by blocking their candidate which will only create more division. I see Stephen Kinnock is starting to pitch, he might be able to do the job his dad did!
|
|
|
Post by buryshrew on May 6, 2017 12:07:14 GMT 1
I'm proud of this City has overwhelmingly voted in a Labour mayor. Good news for Manchester here, we'd rather have a Scouser here than a Tory, even Sean Anstee got rejected in 'leafy' Trafford. For some reason the Tees Valley (whatever that is) elected a conservative mayor. Luckily the Conservatives are known for caring about the North East. That's why it's known for having lots of jobs available. You reap what you sow. I voted Burnham because he was the only choice that looked remotely capable of handling the role rather than for his political leanings, all the rest were either lightweight or clueless. I've been amazed by the lack of genuine alternative candidates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 17:18:23 GMT 1
Being an extremist - although not a fanatic - I'm content. It is the PLP as a whole that concerns me. 1) Allowing the Blair-Brown Punch and Judy nonsense to carry on for so long that it stifled the emergence of the next generation of leaders. 2) Driving the change of the rules for leadership election without then thinking how that changed the game. 3) Running utterly inept leadership campaigns twice in opposition to Corbyn. 4) A swathe of MPs sitting on their hands on the back benches even to the point of the Opposition being unable to fill shadow posts. 5) The manner in which MPs are happy to write articles in the press to attack Corbyn. 6) The antics leading to the second leadership election. The rest of the party has more idea than the PLP - and are getting on with the task - including helping new members to get involved and take on new responsibilities. ^This. Corbyns task is to win the party, not this election. Which we all know is a foregone conclusion and always was. Good way of looking at it and excellent points from Sean as always. The problem from where I'm sitting is whether he's trying to find a 'new way' beyond the 'old left' and the now failed 'third way'. The message isn't coherent at the moment. Whatever happens to Corbyn, Social Democracy in this country needs to get it's together over the next 5 years. And in the rest of Europe for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 6, 2017 17:28:37 GMT 1
I'm proud of this City has overwhelmingly voted in a Labour mayor. Good news for Manchester here, we'd rather have a Scouser here than a Tory, even Sean Anstee got rejected in 'leafy' Trafford. For some reason the Tees Valley (whatever that is) elected a conservative mayor. Luckily the Conservatives are known for caring about the North East. That's why it's known for having lots of jobs available. You reap what you sow. I voted Burnham because he was the only choice that looked remotely capable of handling the role rather than for his political leanings, all the rest were either lightweight or clueless. I've been amazed by the lack of genuine alternative candidates. The fact that Yvette Cooper shot back to being favourite for next leader is slightly depressing. Has a cracking CV but was just an awful, identikit option in the leadership contest. Corbyn won because he spoke his mind, actually answered questions and that engaged with a lot of people sick of the same old, same old from the centre-left. Regarding my overall impression of Corbyn, Sean makes plenty of good points. However, I'd contend that while it is true that Labour was never going to win the next election after he took over, it also was not a given that they would subside to the manner that they have and it is a concern. The turning point was around this time last year, when the referendum had driven a spike of support for UKIP in the polls but Labour were within a couple of points of the Tories and even ahead by a few polls. The referendum happened, and then several events happened all together which led us down the path we're in now. Firstly, the collapse in UKIP's support - both due to Farage's departure and the fact that leaving the EU was happening. Secondly, the departure of the unpopular Cameron and Osborne and a swift (and brutal) Tory contest established May, a largely popular choice, as the new PM. Thirdly, Labour's attempted coup happened and although Corbyn comfortably saw off the unimpressive challenge, he's never really recovered since. Now how much of that can be put on Corbyn? That is the question that I find myself asking. Lots of people are biased against Corbyn and won't vote for him without knowing any of his policies, but I suspect that those people would be unlikely to vote Labour anyway.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 6, 2017 19:00:38 GMT 1
LufraShrew - like I said I am an extremist. This means that I know enough Marxism not to be subject to Bonnie Tyler Syndrome of waiting for a hero who will resolve our problems. History isn't driven by great people but rather social classes, technological change and economic conditions.
I'll illustrate the real problem for Labour at the moment by relating a conversation that I heard on Polling day.
Lady wearing Conservative rosette to a Labour supporter: Is there a food bank in Broseley? Labour supporter: The donations we have through the church usually go to Madeley. Lady wearing Conservative rosette: Only [my partner] hasn't been paid for 7 weeks and we're running out of food.
In a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by returnofthehype on May 7, 2017 20:53:47 GMT 1
As some of you may have gathered I'm not the most intelligent of posters, so would appreciate some insight into Mr Corbyn and the Labour Party strategy.
Even the most ardent of lefties would have to concede they will not win the General Election, so what happens next.
Will they have someone in the wings to take over from Corbyn, (if so who?) and have a complete "clear the decks" approach and portray a New, new Labour with more centre of the road policies.
Or..stand fast and unite behind Corbyn?
We need a strong Labour Party to challenger the Tories but all I can see is a party in self destruct mode.
Where next for the muslei brigade...
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 7, 2017 21:17:05 GMT 1
As some of you may have gathered I'm not the most intelligent of posters, so would appreciate some insight into Mr Corbyn and the Labour Party strategy. Even the most ardent of lefties would have to concede they will not win the General Election, so what happens next. Will they have someone in the wings to take over from Corbyn, (if so who?) and have a complete "clear the decks" approach and portray a New, new Labour with more centre of the road policies. Or..stand fast and unite behind Corbyn? We need a strong Labour Party to challenger the Tories but all I can see is a party in self destruct mode. Where next for the muslei brigade... Don't knock your intelligence - long in the tooth political commentators struggle with the question on where next for the Labour Party! I'd actually throw it wider and say what's the future of the centre and left political parties in the U.K. Including the Greens, SNP, Liberal Democrats and Independents. To that end there is quite a good book (as mentioned in the general election thread) called "The Alternative Towards a New Progressive Politics" which explores some of the ideas on where "the left" goes next He is a Guardian Journalist (klaxon alert) but also find John Harris does some interesting articles and blogs on the subject too From a more right sided view on things Matthew Parris has written some good articles on the subject
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 8, 2017 6:39:50 GMT 1
LufraShrew - like I said I am an extremist. This means that I know enough Marxism not to be subject to Bonnie Tyler Syndrome of waiting for a hero who will resolve our problems. History isn't driven by great people but rather social classes, technological change and economic conditions. I'll illustrate the real problem for Labour at the moment by relating a conversation that I heard on Polling day. Lady wearing Conservative rosette to a Labour supporter: Is there a food bank in Broseley? Labour supporter: The donations we have through the church usually go to Madeley. Lady wearing Conservative rosette: Only [my partner] hasn't been paid for 7 weeks and we're running out of food. In a nutshell. Not sure what point you're making regarding that conversation? Are you saying the issue for Labour is that conservative voters don't know what's good for them? apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick! :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 6:51:51 GMT 1
I think Sean is suggesting that the real problem for Labour at the moment is their message isn't getting across.
From my perspective that's because the PLP, Corbyn and the CLP are on different pages. So to speak.
|
|