Zhivago wrote:Also, this Angela Eagle woman isn't even a socialist, I mean what kind of socialist posts links to The Daily Mail on her Facebook wall??! She does not belong in the Labour party.
It's not a socialist party, there is a socialist party for anyone who wants to join one.
Absurd!
In the rule book it says in the first sentence of Clause IV, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. "
Zhivago wrote:Also, this Angela Eagle woman isn't even a socialist, I mean what kind of socialist posts links to The Daily Mail on her Facebook wall??! She does not belong in the Labour party.
It's not a socialist party, there is a socialist party for anyone who wants to join one.
Absurd!
In the rule book it says in the first sentence of Clause IV, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. "
Back in the real world it wasn't a socialist party under Kinnock, which is as far back as I remember, and it wasn't dragged left of Kinnock under Smith, Blair, Brown or Milliband
Digby wrote:
Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.
How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.
What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.
Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thusthe grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.
At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.
You mean the ones behaving like bullies in a primary school playground spreading gossip?
Back in the real world it wasn't a socialist party under Kinnock, which is as far back as I remember, and it wasn't dragged left of Kinnock under Smith, Blair, Brown or Milliband
You wouldn't know the real world if it hit you in the face.
jared_7 wrote:
How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.
What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.
Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thusthe grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.
At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.
You mean the ones behaving like bullies in a primary school playground spreading gossip?
There's some daft practices in politics, if it helps I've not hear much gossip about Jeremy though I don't read any of tabloids. And at a time when the shadow chancellor berates the London Mayor for being on the same platform as the PM I'd suggest if's the lefties acting (and failing) as school bullies.
Digby wrote:
Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.
How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.
What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.
Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.
At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.
Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.
You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?
jared_7 wrote:
How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.
What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.
Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.
At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.
Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.
You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?
Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.
There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.
In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.
fivepointer wrote:
There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.
Problem with that is Corbyn has a long, long history of voting against his party leaders, so he's in no position to say others aren't free to do similar without looking still loopier.
Digby wrote:
Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.
At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.
Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.
You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?
Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.
There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.
In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.
But once again, the vote of no confidence surely relates to the fact the Labour Party is in tatters?
If those 20-30 Consevatives within the Labour Party hadn't rocked the ship to the point it was sinking, would there be no confidence?
Lol, it's a self fulfilling prophecy; They are losing votes because the party is a fucking mess of division and internal sniping from the Blairites. We don't know how an actual party under Corbyn would do because he, quite literally, wasn't given a single day since coming into power of a chance to push policy.
You said there needs to be accommodation, I've highlighted examples of Corbyn doing so. Can you give any of the Blairites making any efforts to compromise and move forward?
Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.
There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.
In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.
But once again, the vote of no confidence surely relates to the fact the Labour Party is in tatters?
If those 20-30 Consevatives within the Labour Party hadn't rocked the ship to the point it was sinking, would there be no confidence?
If he were a halfway decent leader he wouldn't have let 20 disaffected MPs pollute the entire parliamentary party within 9 months.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
fivepointer wrote:
Dont make the mistake of thinking that every Labour MP opposed to Corbyn and critical of his leadership is a Blairite.
There has been a hard core of 20-30 MP's who have done everything they could to undermine him from day one with the willing assistance of sections of the media. Frankly these Mp's need to ask themselves whether they belong in the party.
In the middle ground are the bulk of centrist and soft left MP's who on the whole have been willing to give Corbyn a chance and to work with him where they could. The fact that he has lost the trust of this section of the PLP really should make it obvious that his leadership has very serious flaws. The no confidence vote is quite damning. 80% of his party at Westminster find his leadership unsatisfactory and cannot work with him.
But once again, the vote of no confidence surely relates to the fact the Labour Party is in tatters?
If those 20-30 Consevatives within the Labour Party hadn't rocked the ship to the point it was sinking, would there be no confidence?
If he were a halfway decent leader he wouldn't have let 20 disaffected MPs pollute the entire parliamentary party within 9 months.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
There are other ways of leading.
I'd grant him there's a problem that they didn't want to follow him, but his first meeting as leader with them was a shocker, and frankly he had to know this was a problem when he asked for the job. And he had to know he'd spent decades voting against his own party leadership so would have sod all to complain about if others didn't agree with him.
At this point he's tried leading but no one wants to follow, and a leader with no followers is just an angry ranting soul.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
There are other ways of leading.
I'd grant him there's a problem that they didn't want to follow him, but his first meeting as leader with them was a shocker, and frankly he had to know this was a problem when he asked for the job. And he had to know he'd spent decades voting against his own party leadership so would have sod all to complain about if others didn't agree with him.
At this point he's tried leading but no one wants to follow, and a leader with no followers is just an angry ranting soul.
Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.
He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.
He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.
People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If he isn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.
He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.
People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If heisn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.
Last edited by Zhivago on Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Has he tried leading? Is there a policy portfolio that I've missed? i know he's set up a lot of committees to think about various issues but he seems pretty short on actual policy vision and therefore a rallying point.
He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.
Showing your true colours here. Do you have nightmares of commies under your bed?
Digby wrote:
There's some daft practices in politics, if it helps I've not hear much gossip about Jeremy though I don't read any of tabloids. And at a time when the shadow chancellor berates the London Mayor for being on the same platform as the PM I'd suggest if's the lefties acting (and failing) as school bullies.
It seems odd that at the very time the entire world is in need of probity in politics, you've decided to discount that imperative in favour of,.......
Digby wrote:
He's never recovered from that first meeting which descended into a shouting match with his shadow cabinet. People walked out, there were tears, and I'm told he's barely met with anyone who doesn't agree with him since. And until they can get together and form policy he can't release anything when his own party's big figures will trash it. Again I have no sympathy as he had to know this would be the case when clearly many had an issue with Red Ed before him and what policy had been.
People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If heisn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.
Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Donny osmond wrote:
People talk about him being a decent and courageous man, and I'm sure he is both those things, but decency and courage are only half the battle... If heisn't intelligent enough to be good at both the art and science of politics then he's the wrong man for the job. You only have to see or hear him speak to realize that he isn't particularly intelligent and in being a completely uninspiring leader he clearly knows 3/4 of fuck all about being good at politics. The wrong man has been elevated above his station - happens all the time and they always get found out. He has, and he should realize it asap if he's gives a flying fuck about the labour party as a political force.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.
Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?
Zhivago wrote:
What does that even mean? Spin? Rhetoric? Is that even necessary nowadays? Surely compassion, honesty, decency, and courage are more important.
Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?
Well, if he was intelligent enough to be a leader then he would've changed the transcript...?
But Ok, you want another example, witness his bullshit attempt to support an EU remain campaign that he clearly disagreed with.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Donny osmond wrote:
Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
At least to inspire anyone who doesn't already firmly agree with him. If Labour really want to run a candidate that far to the left they need to put in the grass roots wok to build support for such ideology, showing people they can deliver. It'd probably have to start at a local level, it could take decades, and it may never work - but without it they're just too out of touch with how the electorate will vote even if in the next election they won every Scottish seat, and there's seemingly no chance they'll do that.
I'd vote Labour if my choice was David Milliband Vs Andrea Leadsome, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one. But that's where Labour would need to position themselves, and what the alternative would need to be for me to act in such fashion. There's not a bat in hell's chance of getting middle England to vote Corbyn even against a two term austerity Conservative government, and without a strong centrist vote there's just no way to win an election
Donny osmond wrote:
Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?
Well, if he was intelligent enough to be a leader then he would've changed the transcript...?
But Ok, you want another example, witness his bullshit attempt to support an EU remain campaign that he clearly disagreed with.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I tend to think he'd have reviewed the speech himself given it was an important presentation to make clear he wasn't a racist, to make a fresh start and to get his leadership of the party up and running. Even if he didn't, and more fool him if so, he's in charge of who his advisers and speech writers are.
Donny osmond wrote:
Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
At least to inspire anyone who doesn't already firmly agree with him. If Labour really want to run a candidate that far to the left they need to put in the grass roots wok to build support for such ideology, showing people they can deliver. It'd probably have to start at a local level, it could take decades, and it may never work - but without it they're just too out of touch with how the electorate will vote even if in the next election they won every Scottish seat, and there's seemingly no chance they'll do that.
I'd vote Labour if my choice was David Milliband Vs Andrea Leadsome, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one. But that's where Labour would need to position themselves, and what the alternative would need to be for me to act in such fashion. There's not a bat in hell's chance of getting middle England to vote Corbyn even against a two term austerity Conservative government, and without a strong centrist vote there's just no way to win an election
Nailed it.
Take apart the champagne socialists and the genuine lefties across the country, and there isn't enough support for the Labour party to win a GE. Scotland probably won't return to them many seats next time around. They will continue to do well in London, but the rest of England just won't provide them enough seats unless they look to tempt middle class voters across to them. Corbin and his mates are incapable of doing that. Corbin can talk to his supports, i.e. those who are already signed up to his philosophy, but he can't convert people.
All the Tories have to do at the moment is appear to be vaguely competent and they will win the next GE.
