RugbyRebels

I'd have thought that Kaufman had a large personal vote. I guess the constituency is urban or suburban so it's more likely to be Corbyn friendly.

Remember that talk of how many new members Labour picked up since Corbyn came in?

Yeah, about that...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:And another by-election looms with the passing of Gerald Kaufman. It should be safe...

Just read that his defence for claiming expenses including a £8k 40" LCD TV and a £225 pen amongst other things totalling £28k, was he had OCD

RIP...........integrity.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:And another by-election looms with the passing of Gerald Kaufman. It should be safe...

A 24K majority and one of the few labour MPs to increase his share of the vote at the last election. Rock solid I would suggest, even with the loss of a popular MP and the Corbyn effect, this should be a safe seat. The question is by how much the margin drops...

And while everyone focuses on the Her Majesty's Opposition so much, the government can get away with their chaotic and destructive policies.

Of course, a sane opposition would be trying to hold the government to account. Corbyn is utterly failing here and the only opposition that May needs to concern herself with are her own backbenchers.

cashead wrote:Remember that talk of how many new members Labour picked up since Corbyn came in?

Yeah, about that...

Could be light at the end of the tunnel for the moderates? Wait for the electoral destruction and rebuild afterwards once all the Momentum inspired folks have got bored and moved away again. Or perhaps chance their arm towards the end of 2018 with a leadership contest again and try to install a respected figure who can limit the damage likely to be caused. On reflection, perhaps the latter if the membership rates keep dropping.

The membership will continue to fall. Support will ebb away from Corbyn as it becomes obvious that he is hopelessly out of his depth and is leading the party to destruction. We are past peak Corbyn. Its now a matter of when he goes and what is left of Labour's support. The longer he clings on, the worse it will be for the party in trying to recover some of the ground that has been lost. A truly principled man would hold his hands up, admit he wasnt up to it and make way for new leadership.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
A 24K majority and one of the few labour MPs to increase his share of the vote at the last election. Rock solid I would suggest, even with the loss of a popular MP and the Corbyn effect, this should be a safe seat. The question is by how much the margin drops...

And while everyone focuses on the Her Majesty's Opposition so much, the government can get away with their chaotic and destructive policies.

Of course, a sane opposition would be trying to hold the government to account. Corbyn is utterly failing here and the only opposition that May needs to concern herself with are her own backbenchers.

Labour is divided, and the environment is hostile. But to pin that squarely on Corbyn is a very simplistic attitude. I'd expect a more nuanced view from someone like yourself.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
And while everyone focuses on the Her Majesty's Opposition so much, the government can get away with their chaotic and destructive policies.

Of course, a sane opposition would be trying to hold the government to account. Corbyn is utterly failing here and the only opposition that May needs to concern herself with are her own backbenchers.

Labour is divided, and the environment is hostile. But to pin that squarely on Corbyn is a very simplistic attitude. I'd expect a more nuanced view from someone like yourself.

Actually, many of its current problems do stem from a failure in leadership. Thats not 100% the problem and there is a contradiction in its membership, but Corbyn has been ineffective to the point of comedy. A better leader should have made a better hash of it; lets be fair the Tories have given them enough opportunities to take.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Of course, a sane opposition would be trying to hold the government to account. Corbyn is utterly failing here and the only opposition that May needs to concern herself with are her own backbenchers.

Labour is divided, and the environment is hostile. But to pin that squarely on Corbyn is a very simplistic attitude. I'd expect a more nuanced view from someone like yourself.

Actually, many of its current problems do stem from a failure in leadership. Thats not 100% the problem and there is a contradiction in its membership, but Corbyn has been ineffective to the point of comedy. A better leader should have made a better hash of it; lets be fair the Tories have given them enough opportunities to take.

Yep. There's no coherence in policy on the one and a half topics on which there is a policy. Said policy, I'll discount the half policy, will change dependant on what was had for lunch. I'd have some respect for him if he just said this is what I believe in and I'll back my position to the last. Whereas you get I don't believe in nuclear weapons but I'll waste money on building, running and maintaining the subs. If he just stood up and said "I don't believe in a nuclear deterrent and we therefore don't needs the subs and jobs that go with them" you'd have some respect for him, even if you don't agree with him.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Labour is divided, and the environment is hostile. But to pin that squarely on Corbyn is a very simplistic attitude. I'd expect a more nuanced view from someone like yourself.

Actually, many of its current problems do stem from a failure in leadership. Thats not 100% the problem and there is a contradiction in its membership, but Corbyn has been ineffective to the point of comedy. A better leader should have made a better hash of it; lets be fair the Tories have given them enough opportunities to take.

Yep. There's no coherence in policy on the one and a half topics on which there is a policy. Said policy, I'll discount the half policy, will change dependant on what was had for lunch. I'd have some respect for him if he just said this is what I believe in and I'll back my position to the last. Whereas you get I don't believe in nuclear weapons but I'll waste money on building, running and maintaining the subs. If he just stood up and said "I don't believe in a nuclear deterrent and we therefore don't needs the subs and jobs that go with them" you'd have some respect for him, even if you don't agree with him.

Yeah that's as daft as having an aircraft carrier and no planes!

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Actually, many of its current problems do stem from a failure in leadership. Thats not 100% the problem and there is a contradiction in its membership, but Corbyn has been ineffective to the point of comedy. A better leader should have made a better hash of it; lets be fair the Tories have given them enough opportunities to take.

Yep. There's no coherence in policy on the one and a half topics on which there is a policy. Said policy, I'll discount the half policy, will change dependant on what was had for lunch. I'd have some respect for him if he just said this is what I believe in and I'll back my position to the last. Whereas you get I don't believe in nuclear weapons but I'll waste money on building, running and maintaining the subs. If he just stood up and said "I don't believe in a nuclear deterrent and we therefore don't needs the subs and jobs that go with them" you'd have some respect for him, even if you don't agree with him.

Yeah that's as daft as having an aircraft carrier and no planes!

Agreed. We will get some aircraft though...... possibly........ even if they are billions over budget and stuck on ships that breakdown anywhere south of La Rochelle.

Yup, although when you dig into the detail there are good reasons why that happened. Once the funding cuts were announced, it was obvious that a type of aircraft was going to go. Most assumed the harrier would stay, but the harrier can't carry the same weapons load as the tornado, so the RAF made the decision to keep the tonka and ditch harrier.

Navy not happy of course, but welcome to the world of inter service politics. I think Cameron would have killed off the carriers altogether if not for the horrendous costs in doing so.

Sandydragon wrote:Yup, although when you dig into the detail there are good reasons why that happened. Once the funding cuts were announced, it was obvious that a type of aircraft was going to go. Most assumed the harrier would stay, but the harrier can't carry the same weapons load as the tornado, so the RAF made the decision to keep the tonka and ditch harrier.

Navy not happy of course, but welcome to the world of inter service politics. I think Cameron would have killed off the carriers altogether if not for the horrendous costs in doing so.

And let's not get into the nonsense of the Tories first switching from the Labour choice of the F-35B to F-35C... only to reverse their decision back to the F-35B... at a cost to the taxpayer of course. So if this is a discussion of incompetance... we really need look no further than the idiotic bumblings of the Tories.

Why can't we look at the idiocy of both Labour and the Conservatives?

Digby wrote:Why can't we look at the idiocy of both Labour and the Conservatives?

We should, but the focus on here is always on Labour, and barely a whisper about the chaotic Conservatives. And let's not forget that way bigger than any of these trivialities we just discussed is Brexit, and although I know some will want to try to pin this on Corbyn somehow, the main culprits are the self-serving imbecilic Tories, who ignored their responsibilities to our nation in favour of defending their narrow party interests. And what chaos they unleashed on us. Truly staggering... dwarfs any tentative proposals that Labour come up with that get ridiculed in the press.

This is a thread about Labour

Digby wrote:This is a thread about Labour

Pedant.

Digby wrote:This is a thread about Labour

That's my point. Always about Labour, even though they aren't in power, making a cockup of everything.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Yup, although when you dig into the detail there are good reasons why that happened. Once the funding cuts were announced, it was obvious that a type of aircraft was going to go. Most assumed the harrier would stay, but the harrier can't carry the same weapons load as the tornado, so the RAF made the decision to keep the tonka and ditch harrier.

Navy not happy of course, but welcome to the world of inter service politics. I think Cameron would have killed off the carriers altogether if not for the horrendous costs in doing so.

And let's not get into the nonsense of the Tories first switching from the Labour choice of the F-35B to F-35C... only to reverse their decision back to the F-35B... at a cost to the taxpayer of course. So if this is a discussion of incompetance... we really need look no further than the idiotic bumblings of the Tories.

Yup, in a logical world it made no sense. Except there were attempts to cut costs elsewhere which pushed a different aircraft solution. This happens a lot with DE&S where initial cost estimates are woefully low and there is pressure to cut costs further down the project. No government has truly grasped this and the amount of leeway that BAe has is astonishing.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:This is a thread about Labour

That's my point. Always about Labour, even though they aren't in power, making a cockup of everything.

To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:This is a thread about Labour

That's my point. Always about Labour, even though they aren't in power, making a cockup of everything.

Well if it makes you happy I'm livid at many of the actions of the Tories, though I would add I think Corbyn would be worse.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:This is a thread about Labour

That's my point. Always about Labour, even though they aren't in power, making a cockup of everything.

To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.

I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.

I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.

But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
That's my point. Always about Labour, even though they aren't in power, making a cockup of everything.

To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.

I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.

I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.

But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.

I wouldn't say Corbyn's subs v Cameron's aircraft carriers is a fair comparison. One was/is ideological bollocks the other was a poor decision that was the result of a list of poor decisions. One saddles us with a generations worth of white elephants, the other a few years worth.

Corbyn may think he has the interests of the majority at heart but that doesn't mean that his ideas are best for the interests of the majority. A lot of what he thinks is ideological bollocks that doesn't really have any base in leading a major party, let alone a leading nation. It's all very good for fringe meetings of those still living in the 70's, and I've no doubt it's well intentioned, but it's no good if you want to lead a modern, open nation. Particularly, if that nation is naturally right of centre.

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.

I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.

I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.

But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.

I wouldn't say Corbyn's subs v Cameron's aircraft carriers is a fair comparison. One was/is ideological bollocks the other was a poor decision that was the result of a list of poor decisions. One saddles us with a generations worth of white elephants, the other a few years worth.

Corbyn may think he has the interests of the majority at heart but that doesn't mean that his ideas are best for the interests of the majority. A lot of what he thinks is ideological bollocks that doesn't really have any base in leading a major party, let alone a leading nation. It's all very good for fringe meetings of those still living in the 70's, and I've no doubt it's well intentioned, but it's no good if you want to lead a modern, open nation. Particularly, if that nation is naturally right of centre.

But stupid given that we haven't used our nukes ever, and are unlikely to. So we already have these white elephants.

And ideology is central to politics. It's nonsense to moan about policy being ideologically minded. The ideology at heart being anti-nukes, but pro-jobs.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.

I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.

But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.

I wouldn't say Corbyn's subs v Cameron's aircraft carriers is a fair comparison. One was/is ideological bollocks the other was a poor decision that was the result of a list of poor decisions. One saddles us with a generations worth of white elephants, the other a few years worth.

Corbyn may think he has the interests of the majority at heart but that doesn't mean that his ideas are best for the interests of the majority. A lot of what he thinks is ideological bollocks that doesn't really have any base in leading a major party, let alone a leading nation. It's all very good for fringe meetings of those still living in the 70's, and I've no doubt it's well intentioned, but it's no good if you want to lead a modern, open nation. Particularly, if that nation is naturally right of centre.

But stupid given that we haven't used our nukes ever, and are unlikely to. So we already have these white elephants.

And ideology is central to politics. It's nonsense to moan about policy being ideologically minded. The ideology at heart being anti-nukes, but pro-jobs.

Unfortunately, none of us will be here to say "I told you we needed them." Joking aside, just because they aren't used doesn't mean they aren't needed. By that logic you could argue that we don't need GCHQ as we haven't had a terrorist attack in ages (touches wood) but I bet the French and Belgians wish their versions were as well resources as ours.

Yes, all politics is ideologically driven but I hate ideology for ideology's sake. I think that whether it's public sector transport > private sector transport or academies > local authority run schools.