RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:The guardian have published a view supporting Corbyn, which I largely agree with:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sciplinary

That is indeed a fair article. Unfortunately that wasn't the narrative that the media took, which decided to constantly ask Starmer if he thinks Corbyn is anti-semitic etc.

In any case Labour should split, it currently covers too wide a spectrum of political opinion for one party. I'm sure that a few decades of Tory rule will move the country towards supporting PR. A heavy price though.

It seemed like a dissenting view considering the other things the Guardian said. Good for them for publishing it.

Under the current FPTP system, Labour needs to be this large to win power. So it needs to cover a wide spectrum of views. Is it too wide for one party? Hopefully not, so hopefully Corbyn will be reinstated, and soon.

I don't see this country supporting PR at all (unfortunately). The main parties don't want it. Of all the newspapers, only the Independent would support it. I just don't see it happening, especially with the of the LibDems suffering a slow death. If the Brexit party had stuck around, polled 20% but got no seats there might have been some pressure, but that wasn't how it went.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I would quite like more choice, and I'd prefer those ideally PR elected choices worked together. Still, either within or across parties you'll have to give up much of what you want in some compromise process whatever the system.

You'll never get everything you want, true. But you're much more likely to get a fair amount of what you want if a party you vote for that represents your views accurately gets into power (even if it's as a junior coalition partner).

But then that party will have to negotiate with other parties, and that doesn't seem hugely different to negotiating within parties, it's simply changing the point in the process at which certain tradeoffs occur. I'd prefer a system more akin to the one you propose to our FPP more limited number of parties, but in either system there are problems

The main difference is you won't get all this resentment like we have now. We have natural Tories who vote Tory through gritted teeth, and similar for Labour. It's not helping our democracy one bit. And we still often manage to end up with a hung parliament, we may as well adjust our system to one that is made for coalitions.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You'll never get everything you want, true. But you're much more likely to get a fair amount of what you want if a party you vote for that represents your views accurately gets into power (even if it's as a junior coalition partner).

But then that party will have to negotiate with other parties, and that doesn't seem hugely different to negotiating within parties, it's simply changing the point in the process at which certain tradeoffs occur. I'd prefer a system more akin to the one you propose to our FPP more limited number of parties, but in either system there are problems

The main difference is you won't get all this resentment like we have now. We have natural Tories who vote Tory through gritted teeth, and similar for Labour. It's not helping our democracy one bit. And we still often manage to end up with a hung parliament, we may as well adjust our system to one that is made for coalitions.

Maybe. I nearly always vote Lib Dem and over 20 years that's achieved not a lot. The one contribution we made on a national stage saw Clegg trade away on tuition fees with another party, and clearly whilst I didn't care much it went down like a lead balloon with the public and many Lib Dem voters.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:The guardian have published a view supporting Corbyn, which I largely agree with:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sciplinary

That is indeed a fair article. Unfortunately that wasn't the narrative that the media took, which decided to constantly ask Starmer if he thinks Corbyn is anti-semitic etc.

In any case Labour should split, it currently covers too wide a spectrum of political opinion for one party. I'm sure that a few decades of Tory rule will move the country towards supporting PR. A heavy price though.

It seemed like a dissenting view considering the other things the Guardian said. Good for them for publishing it.

Under the current FPTP system, Labour needs to be this large to win power. So it needs to cover a wide spectrum of views. Is it too wide for one party? Hopefully not, so hopefully Corbyn will be reinstated, and soon.

I don't see this country supporting PR at all (unfortunately). The main parties don't want it. Of all the newspapers, only the Independent would support it. I just don't see it happening, especially with the of the LibDems suffering a slow death. If the Brexit party had stuck around, polled 20% but got no seats there might have been some pressure, but that wasn't how it went.

The system needs to get more broken before it'll get fixed. Both parties need to split. If Labour split and the Tories don't, the damaging effects of that will soon be clear enough that will force a public debate.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
But then that party will have to negotiate with other parties, and that doesn't seem hugely different to negotiating within parties, it's simply changing the point in the process at which certain tradeoffs occur. I'd prefer a system more akin to the one you propose to our FPP more limited number of parties, but in either system there are problems

The main difference is you won't get all this resentment like we have now. We have natural Tories who vote Tory through gritted teeth, and similar for Labour. It's not helping our democracy one bit. And we still often manage to end up with a hung parliament, we may as well adjust our system to one that is made for coalitions.

Maybe. I nearly always vote Lib Dem and over 20 years that's achieved not a lot. The one contribution we made on a national stage saw Clegg trade away on tuition fees with another party, and clearly whilst I didn't care much it went down like a lead balloon with the public and many Lib Dem voters.

That was my first election that I could vote in, and I voted Lib Dem. I was so utterly disgusted by Clegg's betrayal that I left the country as soon as I could. I realised back then that the UK system was incapable of representing my political views, and that was totally unacceptable to me.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The main difference is you won't get all this resentment like we have now. We have natural Tories who vote Tory through gritted teeth, and similar for Labour. It's not helping our democracy one bit. And we still often manage to end up with a hung parliament, we may as well adjust our system to one that is made for coalitions.

Maybe. I nearly always vote Lib Dem and over 20 years that's achieved not a lot. The one contribution we made on a national stage saw Clegg trade away on tuition fees with another party, and clearly whilst I didn't care much it went down like a lead balloon with the public and many Lib Dem voters.

That was my first election that I could vote in, and I voted Lib Dem. I was so utterly disgusted by Clegg's betrayal that I left the country as soon as I could. I realised back then that the UK system was incapable of representing my political views, and that was totally unacceptable to me.

Okay, but your objection there pertains to the process you say you want where parties would trade with each other. The only way you avoid trade offs is with a party for everyone and no compromise on anything, and that's not problem free either.

It remains interesting to me however how many people still will not even consider voting Lib Dem because of that one issue many leaderships back with much bigger volte faces by the other parties in the interim.

And one more, the Lib Dems have a massive array of political leanings from those right over on the left and only in the Lib Dems because the dislike the lefties in Labour for whatever reason to those who're basically Tory but have some concern around the delivery of social policies

You’re just highlighting my point about politics getting more radical. Labour has never been a liberal party, it’s a workers party. The most Labour politician is probably John Prescott.

But now they represent workers, moderate liberals and radical liberals, along with people who call themselves socialist and even communist.

Those radicals are not representative of the UK as a whole. Their voice could be heard but they’re campaigning on things that don’t matter to most people. And the things they campaign on that people care about are usually obvious things that would garner support without their presence.

I don’t believe this radicalization is a good sign, I think it shows a broken world with a broken education system (generally).

Especially when this results in calling Starmer right of center... or being despicable toward people you disagree with.

I mean, come on! Just sit back and think about it for a moment?

Why is there any discussion here? Corbyn has been temporarily suspended by the Labour Party for saying something that went against the party. He’s not been kicked out, just suspended pending an investigation.

The exact thing he bloody put in place to prevent this, ffs. Belatedly.

So why you’ve got yourself all hot under the collar, I have no idea.

Zhivago wrote:

cashead wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
No, he needed to have greater influence of internal party structures in order to enact change more effectively.

So when you say "been more ruthless and consolidated his power," what exactly do you mean?

Also, "should have been more like Trump." Nice false choice there.

Pro-tip, Zhivago: don't bother engaging with this sort of bad faith bullshit.

I mean that winning power is not enough, power needs to be consolidated. Olive branches to enemies who will stab you in the back is just foolish, and he should not have been so naive to believe that his generous attempts of inclusion would be met with a change of heart from the right of the party. Politics is about power, and I don't think Corbyn fully grasped that, at least in terms of the practicalities of gaining and keeping political power.

Andrew Little managed it with NZ Labour in 2014, after factional infighting led to a record defeat, and it laid the groundwork for the 2017 win.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You'll never get everything you want, true. But you're much more likely to get a fair amount of what you want if a party you vote for that represents your views accurately gets into power (even if it's as a junior coalition partner).

But then that party will have to negotiate with other parties, and that doesn't seem hugely different to negotiating within parties, it's simply changing the point in the process at which certain tradeoffs occur. I'd prefer a system more akin to the one you propose to our FPP more limited number of parties, but in either system there are problems

The main difference is you won't get all this resentment like we have now. We have natural Tories who vote Tory through gritted teeth, and similar for Labour. It's not helping our democracy one bit. And we still often manage to end up with a hung parliament, we may as well adjust our system to one that is made for coalitions.

I actually agree with this. Both main parties are huge churches of opinion. In some cases too wide and, for example, many Tories during last years Brexit shenanigans found it easier to work with liberals and some centralist Labour MPs than the likes of Bill Cash.

Yet if you want to be in government then you have to be in one of the two big parties, barring the odd occasion when there is a genuine coalition. The concept of some kind of PR is growing on me.

So Corbyn's been reinstated to the Labour party. Although I've not seen the reasoning behind this my guess is that it was because he hadn't actually done anything which should cause expulsion under Labour party rules. So fair enough IMO, and better for party unity.

Whether he gets the whip back is quite a different question, and one definitely for Starmer this time. A really tricky one that depends on precedent amongst other things. I'm not sure what I'd do in his place (not being an expert on such precedent) but my guess is that he won't give Corbyn the whip.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:So Corbyn's been reinstated to the Labour party. Although I've not seen the reasoning behind this my guess is that it was because he hadn't actually done anything which should cause expulsion under Labour party rules. So fair enough IMO, and better for party unity.

Whether he gets the whip back is quite a different question, and one definitely for Starmer this time. A really tricky one that depends on precedent amongst other things. I'm not sure what I'd do in his place (not being an expert on such precedent) but my guess is that he won't give Corbyn the whip.

If you read the Guardian coverage, it's a travesty and a betrayal of all minorities anywhere.

I do have a lot of sympathy for Corbyn - he's not actually said anything drastically controversial, but it's being reported and reacted to like he said, "Fuck the Jews; I don't care about them."

Puja

I have no sympathy for Corbyn, he himself may have limited his hate speech, but he's had and has way too much sympathy for those who are hateful. At best he's ended up in a very confused position on the back of the ideas that imperialism is bad and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and really a competent 12 year old shouldn't have ended up in this hole

Corbyn is a thick narcissist and is entirely to blame for this situation, which puts Starmer in a virtually impossible position and hurts the party when it had started to pull itself together and look credible. He has always been an independent MP, doing what he thought was right and routinely ignoring the whip and going against every leader.
He's a sodding liability.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:So Corbyn's been reinstated to the Labour party. Although I've not seen the reasoning behind this my guess is that it was because he hadn't actually done anything which should cause expulsion under Labour party rules. So fair enough IMO, and better for party unity.

Whether he gets the whip back is quite a different question, and one definitely for Starmer this time. A really tricky one that depends on precedent amongst other things. I'm not sure what I'd do in his place (not being an expert on such precedent) but my guess is that he won't give Corbyn the whip.

It seems like a pretty normal and laudable response, ffs. Someone makes potentially exclusive comments, gets temporarily suspended pending investigation.

I don't get why it's a big deal.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:So Corbyn's been reinstated to the Labour party. Although I've not seen the reasoning behind this my guess is that it was because he hadn't actually done anything which should cause expulsion under Labour party rules. So fair enough IMO, and better for party unity.

Whether he gets the whip back is quite a different question, and one definitely for Starmer this time. A really tricky one that depends on precedent amongst other things. I'm not sure what I'd do in his place (not being an expert on such precedent) but my guess is that he won't give Corbyn the whip.

It seems like a pretty normal and laudable response, ffs. Someone makes potentially exclusive comments, gets temporarily suspended pending investigation.

I don't get why it's a big deal.

The same reason the Mail are suddenly interested in Marcus Rashford's property portfolio - media reacting to potential threats to their favoured party/mealticket.

Puja

But he's not going to return as a Labour MP. Probably the right call by Starmer, but I bet he wishes it wasn't a call he must feel in part backed into.

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:So Corbyn's been reinstated to the Labour party. Although I've not seen the reasoning behind this my guess is that it was because he hadn't actually done anything which should cause expulsion under Labour party rules. So fair enough IMO, and better for party unity.

Whether he gets the whip back is quite a different question, and one definitely for Starmer this time. A really tricky one that depends on precedent amongst other things. I'm not sure what I'd do in his place (not being an expert on such precedent) but my guess is that he won't give Corbyn the whip.

It seems like a pretty normal and laudable response, ffs. Someone makes potentially exclusive comments, gets temporarily suspended pending investigation.

I don't get why it's a big deal.

The same reason the Mail are suddenly interested in Marcus Rashford's property portfolio - media reacting to potential threats to their favoured party/mealticket.

Puja

Yep, Corbyn is hated by the Tory press AND the Guardian. (Is the Mirror still in his corner, maybe? If so, only them.) So he doesn't get a while lot of positive coverage.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote: It seems like a pretty normal and laudable response, ffs. Someone makes potentially exclusive comments, gets temporarily suspended pending investigation.

I don't get why it's a big deal.

The same reason the Mail are suddenly interested in Marcus Rashford's property portfolio - media reacting to potential threats to their favoured party/mealticket.

Puja

Yep, Corbyn is hated by the Tory press AND the Guardian. (Is the Mirror still in his corner, maybe? If so, only them.) So he doesn't get a while lot of positive coverage.

There’s no traditional socialist press, the Guardian is liberal and corbyn isn’t.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: The same reason the Mail are suddenly interested in Marcus Rashford's property portfolio - media reacting to potential threats to their favoured party/mealticket.

Puja

Yep, Corbyn is hated by the Tory press AND the Guardian. (Is the Mirror still in his corner, maybe? If so, only them.) So he doesn't get a while lot of positive coverage.

There’s no traditional socialist press, the Guardian is liberal and corbyn isn’t.

Id suggest that the Mirror is further to the left than the Guardian, and theres the Daily Star. I've no idea what the readership of the Socialist Worker is but I don't think its anywhere near the key tabloids or broadsheets.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Yep, Corbyn is hated by the Tory press AND the Guardian. (Is the Mirror still in his corner, maybe? If so, only them.) So he doesn't get a while lot of positive coverage.

There’s no traditional socialist press, the Guardian is liberal and corbyn isn’t.

Id suggest that the Mirror is further to the left than the Guardian, and theres the Daily Star. I've no idea what the readership of the Socialist Worker is but I don't think its anywhere near the key tabloids or broadsheets.

I’m not sure I’d consider the mirror more left than the guardian, just differently left.

Digby wrote:I have no sympathy for Corbyn, he himself may have limited his hate speech, buthe's had and has way too much sympathy for those who are hateful. At best he's ended up in a very confused position on the back of the ideas that imperialism is bad and the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and really a competent 12 year old shouldn't have ended up in this hole

Guilty by association is it?

Digby wrote:But he's not going to return as a Labour MP. Probably the right call by Starmer, but I bet he wishes it wasn't a call he must feel in part backed into.

It results in the following:
-The issue of anti-semitism in Labour staying in the news
-Himself looking strong
-The party chaos and division getting worse possibly leading to a split

How on earth is it the right call?

I'm sure Starmer would prefer not have had this spat, but he can't control the daft things coming out of Corbyn's mouth. And the idea if he doesn't act that this story goes away is laughable, that was Corbyn's plan to hope if he didn't speak about being racist everyone would forget he was a racist, and oddly that plan didn't work. If you stick the ball in your own net plenty of people supposedly on your side will point it out, and loads of people not on your side will do the same

Digby wrote:I'm sure Starmer would prefer not have had this spat, but he can't control the daft things coming out of Corbyn's mouth. And the idea if he doesn't act that this story goes away is laughable, that was Corbyn's plan to hope if he didn't speak about being racist everyone would forget he was a racist, and oddly that plan didn't work. If you stick the ball in your own net plenty of people supposedly on your side will point it out, and loads of people not on your side will do the same

Starmer is going to destroy the party at this rate. He's the Nick Clegg of Labour.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm sure Starmer would prefer not have had this spat, but he can't control the daft things coming out of Corbyn's mouth. And the idea if he doesn't act that this story goes away is laughable, that was Corbyn's plan to hope if he didn't speak about being racist everyone would forget he was a racist, and oddly that plan didn't work. If you stick the ball in your own net plenty of people supposedly on your side will point it out, and loads of people not on your side will do the same

Starmer is going to destroy the party at this rate. He's the Nick Clegg of Labour.

How? And on what are you basing this?

Starmer seems far more aligned with both the party's general tendencies over many years and the party's general membership.

He's also not released any policy yet...