Sandydragon wrote:Bunga bunga parties in the US? Well Trump does have a fancy building in Vegas and what happens in Vegas.......
Back on topic and the labour party has royally fecked its last remaining hope for any victory in 2020. I half agree with Eugene that an early election resulting in a wipeout might be beneficial, but I'm not convinced that someone equally as loopy wouldn't be next. As it is, the changes to the constituency boundaries will probably get much of the blame for any 2020 loss.
Meanwhile, what are the Liberals doing? This is a golden opportunity for them to capture those central left voters who liked Blair et al and reform themselves. Yet their profile is a long way oof a party which is seriously trying to re-emerge as one of the main parties in Britain.
There won't be a wipe out. It will be a drubbing - back to the days of a triple figure majority - but they won't be near wipe out.
The Lib Dems chose the wrong leader - although I'm not sure there was a right one left among the MPs since Nick Clegg didn't want to continue - and 4th parties never get much in the way of coverage.
I agree about the Lib Dem leadership, although choices were/ are limited. Fourth party status notwithstanding, I think they should be making more noise. UKIP are further down the pecking order and get considerably more coverage.
Perhaps wipe out is a overstatement, yet I can see Labour being reduced to a small rump if they are not careful. If UKIP can continue to exert influence in certain constituencies, then there is every chance that some Labour heartlands will be lost to them. I think they can forget about swing voters for quite some time and Scotland also seems lost for the next few parliaments whilst the other parties work out how to oppose the SNP. Ruth Davidson seems to most effective there, but as a Conservative she can directly oppose SNP policies in a number of areas and be an alternative voice. Labour have a positioning problem in that they cant outmanoeuvre the SNP to the left and have no intention of moving to their right. I think it will take years for the SNP bubble to burst. In addition, if parts of Wales move away from Labour, then they are left clinging to some seats in London and their old industrial heartlands in the Midlands and North.
As you wrote earlier, it will probably take a real hiding, or two, for them to come to their senses and the student union politicians who failed to grow up to move back to other fringe parties.
That UKIP get more coverage is due to the nature of their extremist politics. That's not a media draw that the Lib dems can emulate, nor is it down to any better campaigning by UKIP. "I think we should be reasonable people" is not going to bring the press or tv news running.
Digby wrote:If Labour carry on announcing spending plans then May might as well call an election. At some point soon, if not already, the Conservatives will just have to write down the slogan 'Labour will double your taxes' and that will be that.
Every single spending pledge (or even aspiration) is now cast in stone because any attempt to resile from it will lead to cries of "sell out" and I strongly suspect that whatever else he'll put up with, that criticism is not one which Corbyn is prepared to bear. Thus there's no incentive to call an election. Just wait and keep them piling up. Anyway they won't fund it by taxes in the short term but by borrowing.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Interesting that Labour is currently, on average, polling worse than it managed to do under Foot in the 1980s after a similar amount of time since the last GE.
There are other parties with extreme messages Eugene. Like him or loath I'm, no one can deny that Farage had a way with the media. The Liberals may suffer by being very middle of the road, but with the ammunition they have been handed with Brexit and Corbyn, this should be a gift for them. Instead they hardly get a mention. Until their conference comes along and its still a bit underwhelming. Perhaps they shold have kept the most successful Liberal leader in recent years, rather run to oust him?
McDonnell did admit to the requirement for more borrowing on the news this morning. £100bn was mentioned which I suspect would just be the start, as at todays prices that might buy half a school. I'm sure I also caught the mention of higher taxes.
Sandydragon wrote:Interesting that Labour is currently, on average, polling worse than it managed to do under Foot in the 1980s after a similar amount of time since the last GE.
There are other parties with extreme messages Eugene. Like him or loath I'm, no one can deny that Farage had a way with the media. The Liberals may suffer by being very middle of the road, but with the ammunition they have been handed with Brexit and Corbyn, this should be a gift for them. Instead they hardly get a mention. Until their conference comes along and its still a bit underwhelming. Perhaps they shold have kept the most successful Liberal leader in recent years, rather run to oust him?
McDonnell did admit to the requirement for more borrowing on the news this morning. £100bn was mentioned which I suspect would just be the start, as at todays prices that might buy half a school. I'm sure I also caught the mention of higher taxes.
No political party is in control of the amount of media it gets. The government gets coverage because it makes actual decisions. The opposition gets coverage because they have to for "balance". The SNP gets coverage because they are in government and because they are constitutionally important. The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.
I'm not too fussed about Farron getting extra media coverage, he might be the best choice they had but he is a little dull. But it does frustrate that it's easier to get coverage if one says something alarmist rather than try to discuss the nuances of how policy will work amongst more middle of the road candidates
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.
I'm not too fussed about Farron getting extra media coverage, he might be the best choice they had but he is a little dull. But it does frustrate that it's easier to get coverage if one says something alarmist rather than try to discuss the nuances of how policy will work amongst more middle of the road candidates
Political journalism at the moment is pisspoor. I expect that from the press but the BBC have abandoned any pretence at a duty to explain and everyone else has pretty much only ever gone through the motions. actually that's not fair on ITV in the days of Walden and others who packed a real punch.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Sandydragon wrote:Interesting that Labour is currently, on average, polling worse than it managed to do under Foot in the 1980s after a similar amount of time since the last GE.
There are other parties with extreme messages Eugene. Like him or loath I'm, no one can deny that Farage had a way with the media. The Liberals may suffer by being very middle of the road, but with the ammunition they have been handed with Brexit and Corbyn, this should be a gift for them. Instead they hardly get a mention. Until their conference comes along and its still a bit underwhelming. Perhaps they shold have kept the most successful Liberal leader in recent years, rather run to oust him?
McDonnell did admit to the requirement for more borrowing on the news this morning. £100bn was mentioned which I suspect would just be the start, as at todays prices that might buy half a school. I'm sure I also caught the mention of higher taxes.
No political party is in control of the amount of media it gets. The government gets coverage because it makes actual decisions. The opposition gets coverage because they have to for "balance". The SNP gets coverage because they are in government and because they are constitutionally important. The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.
Yet with 16 million people voting to remain, there is a huge topic they could major on. I agree that you can't force the media line, but you can at least look like you are interesting enough to be worth covering.
That's a party that has been hijacked. Personally I couldn't care that much about labour, ther than it makes the Tory job easier. If those who have taken over the Labour Party think that they will form an elected government then they are about to hit some reality. Perhaps some will then realist hat to be electable, labour needs to appeal to a wider base. Or perhaps they will become a footnote of political history.
If you think that Corbyn is electable, even if his MPs were playing nicely (oh the irony) then I'd disagree.
Sandydragon wrote:If you think that Corbyn is electable, even if his MPs were playing nicely (oh the irony) then I'd disagree.
If you think that the anti-Corbyn crowd that apparently makes up much of the MPs in the house aren't exacerbating things by behaving the way they are, and demonstrating exactly the kind of shit that has alienated Labour from its base, then I don't know what to tell you.
I have criticised Corbyn in the past, but most of the shit that the party has done is completely out of order. I'd go so far as to say, if Corbyn isn't "electable," neither are the rest of those dipshit MPs. At least the party actually likes Corbyn and want him there. The rest anti-Corbyn MPs? The fuck is their excuse?
Perhaps the mandates of the millions of votes from the public for the manifesto on which they stood and were elected?
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
cashead wrote:
If you think that the anti-Corbyn crowd that apparently makes up much of the MPs in the house aren't exacerbating things by behaving the way they are, and demonstrating exactly the kind of shit that has alienated Labour from its base, then I don't know what to tell you.
I have criticised Corbyn in the past, but most of the shit that the party has done is completely out of order. I'd go so far as to say, if Corbyn isn't "electable," neither are the rest of those dipshit MPs. At least the party actually likes Corbyn and want him there. The rest anti-Corbyn MPs? The fuck is their excuse?
Perhaps the mandates of the millions of votes from the public for the manifesto on which they stood and were elected?
Yeah, and they sure fucked that up, didn't they? Who's in government now?
People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
cashead wrote:
Yeah, and they sure fucked that up, didn't they? Who's in government now?
People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.
Then hey, join the party! Vote against Corbyn! The unwashed, smelly masses were able to snap up a membership in a fire sale, so what's stopping them?
That completely misses the point. There will always be more people voting for party than are members of the party unless you are doing something badly wrong. Millions of people voted for the Labour Party. Labour MPs have every right to reflect the views of those who voted for them. That is the "excuse" of the "dipshit" MPs for opposing what Corbyn wants to do: sticking by what they promised.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Its amazingly ironic that Corbyn now expects loyalty to his leadership when he has probably the worst track record of any MP when it comes to defying his own party leadership.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.
Then hey, join the party! Vote against Corbyn! The unwashed, smelly masses were able to snap up a membership in a fire sale, so what's stopping them?
That completely misses the point. There will always be more people voting for party than are members of the party unless you are doing something badly wrong. Millions of people voted for the Labour Party. Labour MPs have every right to reflect the views of those who voted for them. That is the "excuse" of the "dipshit" MPs for opposing what Corbyn wants to do: sticking by what they promised.
lol.....f*ck off. This has always been the parliamentary party protecting their phoney baloney jobs. They are the ones that, in Sandys words, feel they have 'grown up'. Which actually translates as 'puppets to their corporate paymasters'.
Sandydragon wrote:Its amazingly ironic that Corbyn now expects loyalty to his leadership when he has probably the worst track record of any MP when it comes to defying his own party leadership.
Good,....that's what's needed. The entire whip system makes a mockery of democracy.
Sandydragon wrote:Its amazingly ironic that Corbyn now expects loyalty to his leadership when he has probably the worst track record of any MP when it comes to defying his own party leadership.
Good,....that's what's needed. The entire whip system makes a mockery of democracy.
No it doesn't. It actually supports democracy. It means that those who are elected are encouraged to support the manifesto commitments which they made to the public which is the platform on which they were elected. An MP who has openly declared that he does not support some aspect of it is of course quite welcome to defy the whip, but the basic purpose of the whips is ensuring that the public get what they voted for.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I may have left the Politics room before, and glancing at the replies on this topic the reasons for doing so are painfully obvious. But I just had to add something to the debate.
In 1 day since Corbyn was confirmed as leader, another 15,000+ people have become members of the Labour party. That pretty much shows that there is an appetite for what Corbyn brings, especially as press publications were leading with articles telling people how to leave the party...
Suggesting that the core Labour membership is growing and is happy with the direction.
Suggesting, again, that if you're unhappy with such, but are not a Labour supporter, nor would be, this probably isn't the discussion for you...
Stom wrote:I may have left the Politics room before, and glancing at the replies on this topic the reasons for doing so are painfully obvious. But I just had to add something to the debate.
In 1 day since Corbyn was confirmed as leader, another 15,000+ people have become members of the Labour party. That pretty much shows that there is an appetite for what Corbyn brings, especially as press publications were leading with articles telling people how to leave the party...
Suggesting that the core Labour membership is growing and is happy with the direction.
Suggesting, again, that if you're unhappy with such, but are not a Labour supporter, nor would be, this probably isn't the discussion for you...
So only Labour supporters can comment on a discussion on the Labour party? The is surely a debate across opposing views which is the point of this forum.
15000 new supporters. brilliant. Well done. Now, lets see how he polls across the country come the big electoral tests shall we? Because at the moment he is seen as a joke, and a dangerous joke. Convincing like minded lefties that he is the second coming is one thing, convincing the wider electorate is another all together. Lots of noise on twitter and Facebook don't translate into votes at the ballot box.
Sandydragon wrote:Its amazingly ironic that Corbyn now expects loyalty to his leadership when he has probably the worst track record of any MP when it comes to defying his own party leadership.
Good,....that's what's needed. The entire whip system makes a mockery of democracy.
No it doesn't. It actually supports democracy. It means that those who are elected are encouraged to support the manifesto commitments which they made to the public which is the platform on which they were elected. An MP who has openly declared that he does not support some aspect of it is of course quite welcome to defy the whip, but the basic purpose of the whips is ensuring that the public get what they voted for.
I agree that's it's purpose but it's effect is to stop reform.
Stom wrote:I may have left the Politics room before, and glancing at the replies on this topic the reasons for doing so are painfully obvious. But I just had to add something to the debate.
In 1 day since Corbyn was confirmed as leader, another 15,000+ people have become members of the Labour party. That pretty much shows that there is an appetite for what Corbyn brings, especially as press publications were leading with articles telling people how to leave the party...
Suggesting that the core Labour membership is growing and is happy with the direction.
Suggesting, again, that if you're unhappy with such, but are not a Labour supporter, nor would be, this probably isn't the discussion for you...
So only Labour supporters can comment on a discussion on the Labour party? The is surely a debate across opposing views which is the point of this forum.
15000 new supporters. brilliant. Well done. Now, lets see how he polls across the country come the big electoral tests shall we? Because at the moment he is seen as a joke, and a dangerous joke. Convincing like minded lefties that he is the second coming is one thing, convincing the wider electorate is another all together. Lots of noise on twitter and Facebook don't translate into votes at the ballot box.
Seems all the Corbyn haters want labour to move closer in policy to the Conservatives. If they do that is there really any point in them existing? If there is cock all difference we might as well just leave the country to the tories
Stom wrote:I may have left the Politics room before, and glancing at the replies on this topic the reasons for doing so are painfully obvious. But I just had to add something to the debate.
In 1 day since Corbyn was confirmed as leader, another 15,000+ people have become members of the Labour party. That pretty much shows that there is an appetite for what Corbyn brings, especially as press publications were leading with articles telling people how to leave the party...
Suggesting that the core Labour membership is growing and is happy with the direction.
Suggesting, again, that if you're unhappy with such, but are not a Labour supporter, nor would be, this probably isn't the discussion for you...
So only Labour supporters can comment on a discussion on the Labour party? The is surely a debate across opposing views which is the point of this forum.
15000 new supporters. brilliant. Well done. Now, lets see how he polls across the country come the big electoral tests shall we? Because at the moment he is seen as a joke, and a dangerous joke. Convincing like minded lefties that he is the second coming is one thing, convincing the wider electorate is another all together. Lots of noise on twitter and Facebook don't translate into votes at the ballot box.
Seems all the Corbyn haters want labour to move closer in policy to the Conservatives. If they do that is there really any point in them existing? If there is cock all difference we might as well just leave the country to the tories
That is a cancer that afflicts the entire world. Any deviation from the anecdotal "centre" results in cries of leftie socialist nutjob! Nothing progresses. Not even message board threads.
Labour not being credible (if that is how the electorate on mass see it) isn't good for anyone if they get crushed in the next GE. That is why the leadership of the main opposition to the government is important for all.
I don't really care what their policies are (within reason) but we need valid opposition to any government. Party membership rising doesn't mean jack if they get blown away in a GE.
I am sure the SNP membership was up pre Holyrood elections but they returned fewer seats than previously (but still a good performance it has to be said). Increased membership does not mean increased wider appeal.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:No it doesn't. It actually supports democracy. It means that those who are elected are encouraged to support the manifesto commitments which they made to the public which is the platform on which they were elected. An MP who has openly declared that he does not support some aspect of it is of course quite welcome to defy the whip, but the basic purpose of the whips is ensuring that the public get what they voted for.
It can do but in some rare cases the whip doesn't do that. The SNP for example never ever give their MSPs/MPs a free vote on anything that matters and they aren't allowed to speak out against party policies etc. An example of which being the Trident vote. Rightly or wrongly Helensburgh and the local areas were in favour of it, yet their MP voted against it.
Stom wrote:I may have left the Politics room before, and glancing at the replies on this topic the reasons for doing so are painfully obvious. But I just had to add something to the debate.
In 1 day since Corbyn was confirmed as leader, another 15,000+ people have become members of the Labour party. That pretty much shows that there is an appetite for what Corbyn brings, especially as press publications were leading with articles telling people how to leave the party...
Suggesting that the core Labour membership is growing and is happy with the direction.
Suggesting, again, that if you're unhappy with such, but are not a Labour supporter, nor would be, this probably isn't the discussion for you...
So only Labour supporters can comment on a discussion on the Labour party? The is surely a debate across opposing views which is the point of this forum.
15000 new supporters. brilliant. Well done. Now, lets see how he polls across the country come the big electoral tests shall we? Because at the moment he is seen as a joke, and a dangerous joke. Convincing like minded lefties that he is the second coming is one thing, convincing the wider electorate is another all together. Lots of noise on twitter and Facebook don't translate into votes at the ballot box.
Seems all the Corbyn haters want labour to move closer in policy to the Conservatives. If they do that is there really any point in them existing? If there is cock all difference we might as well just leave the country to the tories
Nope. A lot of us simply think that Corbyn is completely ill equipped to lead the party. He's a lightweight, temperamentally unsuited to the leadership role. His failings should be obvious by now. He's simply not up to it.
Do we want a more radical, progressive Labour party? You bet we do. But it has to be competently lead by someone able to articulate its message and be able to draw support from a wide base.
morepork wrote:
That is a cancer that afflicts the entire world. Any deviation from the anecdotal "centre" results in cries of leftie socialist nutjob! Nothing progresses. Not even message board threads.
But we already had a lunatic left for anyone who wanted to vote for the Socialist party. What we've lost for the time being is a more serious parliamentary party on the centre left who yes would be close to the Tories in ideology but differed on many actual policies and how they should be practically implemented.
So in addition to there now now being a major centre left party we've got the Tories having a free run at staying in government and being able to push through some stronger policies being less held to account in the process.
canta_brian wrote:
Seems all the Corbyn haters want labour to move closer in policy to the Conservatives. If they do that is there really any point in them existing? If there is cock all difference we might as well just leave the country to the tories
Yes if they move close to the Conservatives there's still massive value in them existing. The idea for there to be value and balance we need to see a strident view on the left being held to account by a strident view on the right seems facile.
