RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:

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.

Sandydragon wrote:

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

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

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.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

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.

fivepointer wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
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.

Ah, but you see, that's a debate to be had. And one I would happily get involved in.

I think that many people - myself included - would rather see someone like Corbyn in there drawing the party closer to its roots than someone else whose only aim is election. Even if he fails to become PM, he will have shifted the discussion, which is only a good thing.

If a true change candidate who had leadership qualities presented themselves, I'm sure people would be ecstatic. As it is, there's Corbyn. So until that person arrives, they'll stick with Corbyn, he's the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

I also don't think many are attached to Corbyn himself, more to what he stands for. He's an old fashioned belief politician. There aren't many of them left. If others see him and believe they can achieve what he has, that's also positive.

Stom wrote: I think that many people - myself included - would rather see someone like Corbyn in there drawing the party closer to its roots than someone else whose only aim is election. Even if he fails to become PM, he will have shifted the discussion, which is only a good thing.

Drawing the party closer to it's base and remaining relevant to the electorate is I think something which isn't impossible, but I don't think lurching there suddenly and gaining momentum through Momentum is even close to a good idea. I'm also not sure if the Tories get back in with a bigger majority he'll be having much impact on the discussion, other than perhaps creating a group who want to argue for the purity of their beliefs and rage against compromise. And I've a problem with the idea that politics should be other than a compromise, the government being to me about governing for everyone including those who don't agree with you and thus largely plotting some path through the centre ground. Holding out for being able to do things as you want as per a set of 'pure' values and otherwise shouting at one's opponents seems a childish way to behave.

But the centre ground in British politics is now a very difficult line to draw. In the last 20/30 years Parliamentary parties have become almost indistinguishable from each other. Parliament now primarily seems to be representing business interests and little else. That's not compromise and it certainly ain't governance.

kk67 wrote:But the centre ground in British politics is now a very difficult line to draw. In the last 20/30 years Parliamentary parties have become almost indistinguishable from each other. Parliament now primarily seems to be representing business interests and little else. That's not compromise and it certainly ain't governance.

Maybe it's just me, but the political parties of the last 20-30 years seem remarkably easy to distinguish between. Okay it wasn't perhaps as easy as Foot Vs Thatcher, but even with two brain cells there's no way Blair for instance was the same as Major, or Brown the same as Cameron.

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:But the centre ground in British politics is now a very difficult line to draw. In the last 20/30 years Parliamentary parties have become almost indistinguishable from each other. Parliament now primarily seems to be representing business interests and little else. That's not compromise and it certainly ain't governance.

Maybe it's just me, but the political parties of the last 20-30 years seem remarkably easy to distinguish between. Okay it wasn't perhaps as easy as Foot Vs Thatcher, but even with two brain cells there's no way Blair for instance was the same as Major, or Brown the same as Cameron.

The Parliamentary parties......not the national parties.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:But the centre ground in British politics is now a very difficult line to draw. In the last 20/30 years Parliamentary parties have become almost indistinguishable from each other. Parliament now primarily seems to be representing business interests and little else. That's not compromise and it certainly ain't governance.

Maybe it's just me, but the political parties of the last 20-30 years seem remarkably easy to distinguish between. Okay it wasn't perhaps as easy as Foot Vs Thatcher, but even with two brain cells there's no way Blair for instance was the same as Major, or Brown the same as Cameron.

The Parliamentary parties......not the national parties.

I'm not buying it. Maybe if people are pig ignorant, astonishingly lazy and/or just flat out thick it's difficult to tell them apart, maybe.

For those who don't see why some think Corbyn dangerous. Imagine Fox, Cash or Bone (great name for a country band or 80's prog rock group) suddenly becoming leader of the Conservatives, and in so doing dragging the Conservatives to the right and becoming UKIP in all but name. Does that scare you? If so, then that is how a lot of people, even those on the centre left, feel. If not then wow. I'm centre right and the thought scares me.

Also, I loved the story about Milne changing an MP's speech about Trident whilst said MP was sat on stage waiting to give 'his' doctored speech. Truly unbelievable.

Mellsblue wrote:For those who don't see why some think Corbyn dangerous. Imagine Fox, Cash or Bone (great name for a country band or 80's prog rock group) suddenly becoming leader of the Conservatives, and in so doing dragging the Conservatives to the right and becoming UKIP in all but name. Does that scare you? If so, then that is how a lot of people, even those on the centre left, feel. If not then wow. I'm centre right and the thought scares me.

Also, I loved the story about Milne changing an MP's speech about Trident whilst said MP was sat on stage waiting to give 'his' doctored speech. Truly unbelievable.

So just add water and instant Venezuela or North Korea then? Come on....

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:For those who don't see why some think Corbyn dangerous. Imagine Fox, Cash or Bone (great name for a country band or 80's prog rock group) suddenly becoming leader of the Conservatives, and in so doing dragging the Conservatives to the right and becoming UKIP in all but name. Does that scare you? If so, then that is how a lot of people, even those on the centre left, feel. If not then wow. I'm centre right and the thought scares me.

Also, I loved the story about Milne changing an MP's speech about Trident whilst said MP was sat on stage waiting to give 'his' doctored speech. Truly unbelievable.

So just add water and instant Venezuela or North Korea then? Come on....

You seem to have missed the point and just decided to become all hyperbolic in its place.

But no, I don't think that will happen. Just as I don't believe we'd have a Nazi Germany if Cash became PM. Doesn't mean that I'm not worried about the prospect of a lurch to the left Just as many socialists went in to hyperbole overload after the last election.

Mellsblue wrote:

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:For those who don't see why some think Corbyn dangerous. Imagine Fox, Cash or Bone (great name for a country band or 80's prog rock group) suddenly becoming leader of the Conservatives, and in so doing dragging the Conservatives to the right and becoming UKIP in all but name. Does that scare you? If so, then that is how a lot of people, even those on the centre left, feel. If not then wow. I'm centre right and the thought scares me.

Also, I loved the story about Milne changing an MP's speech about Trident whilst said MP was sat on stage waiting to give 'his' doctored speech. Truly unbelievable.

So just add water and instant Venezuela or North Korea then? Come on....

You seem to have missed the point and just decided to become all hyperbolic in its place.

But no, I don't think that will happen. Just as I don't believe we'd have a Nazi Germany if Cash became PM. Doesn't mean that I'm not worried about the prospect of a lurch to the left Just as many socialists went in to hyperbole overload after the last election.

Countering perceived hyperbole with anecdotal hyperbole. Nice. Best we just leave things as they are then.

Mellsblue wrote: Fox, Cash or Bone (great name for a country band or 80's prog rock group)

Sounds like a legal firm to me.

I don't think that's a reasonable analogue. You're comparing 2 very dodgy suits (let's leave Bill out of this) to a guy that has devoted his life to public service.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Fox, Cash or Bone (great name for a country band or 80's prog rock group)

Sounds like a legal firm to me.

I don't think that's a reasonable analogue. You're comparing 2 very dodgy suits (let's leave Bill out of this) to a guy that has devoted his life to public service.

It's their position on the political spectrum that is the comparison, not their CV. If you do want to discuss their CV's, then just as many people are as sceptical about life long politicians and public servants as there are people sceptical about suits.

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

morepork wrote:

So just add water and instant Venezuela or North Korea then? Come on....

You seem to have missed the point and just decided to become all hyperbolic in its place.

But no, I don't think that will happen. Just as I don't believe we'd have a Nazi Germany if Cash became PM. Doesn't mean that I'm not worried about the prospect of a lurch to the left Just as many socialists went in to hyperbole overload after the last election.

Countering perceived hyperbole with anecdotal hyperbole. Nice. Best we just leave things as they are then.

I witnessed first hand such hyperbole on wide and varied media. To me it's not anecdotal.

My point is that, just as many would see Fox as PM as dangerous so people see Corbyn as PM as dangerous. Myself, who is quite happy to see power float around the middle whilst preferably just to the right, I see both scenarios as dangerous. Though, for some reason you took that to mean that I thought Corbyn would turn the UK into some international outcast. Perhaps we have different ideas of what dangerous is. To me it's a lurch away from what has been the centre ground since I was born, whether that be left or right. For someone who waxes lyrical about the dangerous free marketeers in the NZ political system I thought you'd understand.

Mellsblue wrote: If you do want to discuss their CV's, then just as many people are as sceptical about life long politicians and public servants as there are people sceptical about suits.

That's because our predominantly right wing media portray conviction politicians as being loonies and many of your centrist Parliamentarians now do likewise. We're constantly being told we need more business leaders in Parliament but in my humble opinion that's exactly what has got us in such a mess in the first place. Even Michael Portillo now accepts that an unregulated free market is going to eat itself and us.

But I guess if big business is paying you 10k for 3 hours consultancy work you pretty much do as you're told.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If you do want to discuss their CV's, then just as many people are as sceptical about life long politicians and public servants as there are people sceptical about suits.

That's because our predominantly right wing media portray conviction politicians as being loonies and many of your centrist Parliamentarians now do likewise. We're constantly being told we need more business leaders in Parliament but in my humble opinion that's exactly what has got us in such a mess in the first place. Even Michael Portillo now accepts that an unregulated free market is going to eat itself and us.

But I guess if big business is paying you 10k for 3 hours consultancy work you pretty much do as you're told.

You say we're in a mess, which is sort of true but also when isn't that true. But we also have many of the best opportunities we've ever known (asides from nauseating Lloyds Bank adverts)

And who are you hearing from in favour of an unregulated free market? That'd be an extreme position even for those on the extreme of politics, certainly there's no such view among any credible politician in the Conservative party.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If you do want to discuss their CV's, then just as many people are as sceptical about life long politicians and public servants as there are people sceptical about suits.

That's because our predominantly right wing media portray conviction politicians as being loonies and many of your centrist Parliamentarians now do likewise. We're constantly being told we need more business leaders in Parliament but in my humble opinion that's exactly what has got us in such a mess in the first place. Even Michael Portillo now accepts that an unregulated free market is going to eat itself and us.

But I guess if big business is paying you 10k for 3 hours consultancy work you pretty much do as you're told.

Yes, yes. We can't think for ourselves. We're all puppets of the main stream media etc etc

I always love how people suddenly think that people who they've always disagreed with are suddenly correct when they hold a similar opinion. Me, if someone I've always thought was wrong suddenly agrees with me then I question my own position.

I always remember suddenly realising that I agreed with quite a few of David Aaronovitch's (sp?) opinion pieces and immediately felt he'd moved towards my way of thinking. I dug through a few of his old pieces and realised that we'd both moved towards each other.

I guess if Iranian and Russian state media are paying Corbyn then he'll do as they tell him.

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If you do want to discuss their CV's, then just as many people are as sceptical about life long politicians and public servants as there are people sceptical about suits.

That's because our predominantly right wing media portray conviction politicians as being loonies and many of your centrist Parliamentarians now do likewise. We're constantly being told we need more business leaders in Parliament but in my humble opinion that's exactly what has got us in such a mess in the first place. Even Michael Portillo now accepts that an unregulated free market is going to eat itself and us.

But I guess if big business is paying you 10k for 3 hours consultancy work you pretty much do as you're told.

Yes, yes. We can't think for ourselves. We're all puppets of the main stream media etc etc

I always love how people suddenly think that people who they've always disagreed with are suddenly correct when they hold a similar opinion. Me, if someone I've always thought was wrong suddenly agrees with me then I question my own position.

I always remember suddenly realising that I agreed with quite a few of David Aaronovitch's (sp?) opinion pieces and immediately felt he'd moved towards my way of thinking. I dug through a few of his old pieces and realised that we'd both moved towards each other.

I guess if Iranian and Russian state media are paying Corbyn then he'll do as they tell him.

Well,....not everyone in this country takes part in political debate aside from reading the tabloids so the control of the media is critical. Murdoch, Desmond, the Rothermere's and the Lebedev bros...hardly representative is it..?.

I was told that people become more conservative with age but the gross corruption that is at epidemic levels in public life makes me feel that only a more radical approach is going to achieve anything.