The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[hippo]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I'd be interested to know what evidence or anecdote you have of Owen Smith's leadership qualities? In what areas does he compare favourably to Corbyn?

Not a trick question, just don't know much about him and his voting record looks a bit thin. He didn't manage to make it to the Commons yesterday for the Wales Bill which was debated. Though to be fair, only 2 of the 26 Welsh Labour MP's did.

Labour is dying on its arse here, and it's got nothing to do with Corbyn's abilities, it predates his leadership. They've just given up even turning up.

Well he has held shadow office for starters.

I suppose his biggest asset is that he is unknown and viewed as a rising star - he could prove hopeless I accept - but nothing good will come of Corbyns Leadership of that I am sure, 

 

[hippo]

1 hour ago, dAVe80 said:

Affordable social housing.
Free higher education.
A living wage.
Renationalising the railway.
Making sure the NHS stays in public hands.
Publically controlled energy providers.

You know, unrealistic leftie nonsense.

But those are just aims ....Pretty sure any labour leader would aspire to those...easy 'speak to the converted stuff' 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, hippo said:

Corbyn is an absolutely hopeless leader  - he just wants to preach to those who already agree him - politics isn't that easy. Any Labour leader who wants to win an election has to get some Tory voters on board - thats the real world we live in . JC will never even try to do that 

Spot on, that.

[Mantis]

A brick was thrown through Eagle's constituency office window. "Kinder politics".

Edited July 12, 2016 by Mantis

[chrisp65]

Well well, this is a pickle isn't it.

Of the three possible candidates we have JC that the majority of his MP's don't like, won't follow and don't regard as any kind of leader. We have a man who's main selling point appears to be that nobody has heard of him. Plus we have Angela Eagle, who cried whilst announcing a week ago she was going to announce on Sunday her announcement of standing on Monday, but still couldn't get the media to turn up or other MP's to stand behind her. There's leadership.

Then of course, we have party rules that have been re written and are unclear on what the rules actually are and might lead to a legal challenge from either side if the other side can / can't stand,  because as everyone knows the majority of MP's are of a very different political hue and ambition to the vast majority of the paid up membership.

Meanwhile, a grand total of two of them actually pitched up at parliament yesterday to do some parliamenting.

Ouch.

[Rodders]

Well the heckler of Corbyn that oddly got headline news a while ago turned out to be a plant from Portland Communication. I know this is going to sound cynical but experience leads me to hold fire, wouldn't surprise me to see the Coup lot resort to agitation and infiltration tactics to undermine Corbyn's supporters. Let's see who they get for throwing the brick. 

 

But even then I loathe using the actions of one cretin to tar an entire group as well. Or one offensive online comment to disenfranchise the views of 1000s of other petitioners who didn't say it. Or the many thousands of people with legitimate grievances who didn't pick up a **** fire extinguisher. But it does make for easy deflection: here look at this easily objectionable clearing in the woods, who we can all enjoy judging, no one can argue this person isn't a simpleton tosspot and now lets imply everyone vaguely associated with this movement is like that too. Yay, move the news cycle on we no longer have to engage with all the other people who didn't say X, who didn't do Y. They're all just so easily bracketed, as vile, violent or militant. The rest just "should have been able to mind read, intercept and prevent any individual, however disturbed they may be from doing something daft. Can't say much for their political movements, if they can't control and contain the actions or words of every single other person who may have ever associated with them. And hell, even if the demos are peaceful - when they are we'll just send up a **** stooge and create the news we want anyway. 

 

It makes my **** blood boil.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Rodders

[hippo]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well well, this is a pickle isn't it.

Of the three possible candidates we have JC that the majority of his MP's don't like, won't follow and don't regard as any kind of leader. We have a man who's main selling point appears to be that nobody has heard of him. Plus we have Angela Eagle, who cried whilst announcing a week ago she was going to announce on Sunday her announcement of standing on Monday, but still couldn't get the media to turn up or other MP's to stand behind her. There's leadership.

Then of course, we have party rules that have been re written and are unclear on what the rules actually are and might lead to a legal challenge from either side if the other side can / can't stand,  because as everyone knows the majority of MP's are of a very different political hue and ambition to the vast majority of the paid up membership.

Meanwhile, a grand total of two of them actually pitched up at parliament yesterday to do some parliamenting.

Ouch.

It is a pickle. I think the Labour party has to take the short term hit. Keep JC off the ballot - live with legal challenge - and the possibility of Unite withdrawing funding. Owen Smith would probably then stand and win a leadership election. He probably won't win a GE - but he might keep labour as the official opposition.

The alternative - is Corbyn winning the leadership election - possibly a split - but possibly members of the SWP making labour policies - a complete wipeout to ukip in the north - and possibly coming third in a general election. More squabbles as Corbyn will inevitably start to fall out with members of the SWP as each tries to appear more left wing than the other.

 

 

  

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

If Eagle is the best alternative they can come up with then Labour really are stuffed.

She isn't.

She's been put forward to take the fall. She either stands and loses to Corbyn, in which case the actual powers in the Labour ranks save face and nothing of worth is lost and they carry on biding their time and playing the longer game of waiting for more palatable reasons to knife him/him losing support, or she wins, steadies the ship while they ferret around changing the rules so a Corbyn never happens again, then is quietly shuffled off when things are convenient and they fancy a proper crack at things again and one of the real horses in the race is put forward.

[dAVe80]

44 minutes ago, hippo said:

But those are just aims ....Pretty sure any labour leader would aspire to those...easy 'speak to the converted stuff'

You asked what he was for, as opposed to what he was against though. You didn't ask for his manifesto.

At the end of the day, we don't have any of those things that I listed. His aim is to deliver them. If he can or can't is a different question. Whether he'll be allowed to is another question altogether.

At the end of the day though, his appeal is the fact he's something different, and that is attracting a lot off support. Under his leadership the Labour Party has more member than ever, yet we keep getting told he's unelectable. Maybe he is, but **** me at least he's trying to offer an alternative! You only have to look at the rise of UKIP and the EU referendum result to see people want something different. If he can capture the imagination of the disenfranchised under class, and offer a solution to their problems that isn’t telling them it’ll be better when we stop the immigrants coming in, then the country will be in a much better state.

[dAVe80]

Can anyone please point me to evendence that the Socialist Workers Party are behind Corbyn, and his election to party leader? I'm also wanting to know why are they linked in with Momentum, who it seems are also seen as a loony fringe element? Only going on my own experiences of going to a couple of Momentum meeting, but of the vast majority of Momentum members I spoke to, most had been Labour Party members for years, and a see the SWP as a bit extreme, the same was anyone else does.

[chrisp65]

16 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Can anyone please point me to evendence that the Socialist Workers Party are behind Corbyn, and his election to party leader? I'm also wanting to know why are they linked in with Momentum, who it seems are also seen as a loony fringe element? Only going on my own experiences of going to a couple of Momentum meeting, but of the vast majority of Momentum members I spoke to, most had been Labour Party members for years, and a see the SWP as a bit extreme, the same was anyone else does.

A parliamentary paper  www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05125.pdf  gave Labour membership last year as 270,000.

As of June 23rd this year it was at 395,000. So it doesn't take an Osbourne to work out that under Corbyn membership has risen by over one hundred thousand.

Whilst it isn't easy to get hold of figures for membership of the SWP, their latest announcement was that they had 7,180 members. Some commentators would suggest the actual number is significantly lower than that.

I think what we actually have here, is anyone with broadly left of centre views, anyone that doesn't like fracking, or trident, or paying for education, or austerity, or bailing out of banks, or go home vans, or TTIP is simply being described as SWP as a sort of short hand. 

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Spot on, that.

So how does Corbyn get Tory voters on board?

I see lots of people criticise Corbyn with rhetoric but never anything factual or objective. e.g.

"he just wants to preach to those who already agree him" - I don't understand. In practical terms, what does this mean please? And I don't mean with more rhetoric or buzzwords; what actually do you mean?

"JC will never even try to do that " - Again, what does this mean? He doesn't want anyone who isn't already a Labour voter to vote Labour? Are you sure? And how do you know that?

The only things I seem to read on here against Corbyn are very similar to what gets planted in the media. I'd like someone to tell what he's actually done wrong which hasn't been spun by the media.

[hippo]

1 hour ago, dAVe80 said:

You asked what he was for, as opposed to what he was against though. You didn't ask for his manifesto.

At the end of the day, we don't have any of those things that I listed. His aim is to deliver them. If he can or can't is a different question. Whether he'll be allowed to is another question altogether.

At the end of the day though, his appeal is the fact he's something different, and that is attracting a lot off support. Under his leadership the Labour Party has more member than ever, yet we keep getting told he's unelectable. Maybe he is, but **** me at least he's trying to offer an alternative! You only have to look at the rise of UKIP and the EU referendum result to see people want something different. If he can capture the imagination of the disenfranchised under class, and offer a solution to their problems that isn’t telling them it’ll be better when we stop the immigrants coming in, then the country will be in a much better state.

But it isn't attracting support - yes we have a few members than under Blair - so what ? they are £3 members - so no real financial boost,  recent reports suggest many joined, voted, and haven't done anything since. Take away vindictive Tories, and the SWP - and you will find the Corbyn pull is overstated.

Yes you have to offer something different - but not that different - people don't like change  (I know a good number of people who voted leave - always with the security we would stay) 

He doesn't have to capture the disenfranchised under class - sadly he has to capture Tory voters - and he won't do that make speeches to left wing students....

 

[hippo]

18 minutes ago, darrenm said:

So how does Corbyn get Tory voters on board?

I see lots of people criticise Corbyn with rhetoric but never anything factual or objective. e.g.

"he just wants to preach to those who already agree him" - I don't understand. In practical terms, what does this mean please? And I don't mean with more rhetoric or buzzwords; what actually do you mean?

"JC will never even try to do that " - Again, what does this mean? He doesn't want anyone who isn't already a Labour voter to vote Labour? Are you sure? And how do you know that?

The only things I seem to read on here against Corbyn are very similar to what gets planted in the media. I'd like someone to tell what he's actually done wrong which hasn't been spun by the media.

This may surprise you - but Ive seen it and swear its true.

A lot of people at all levels of the Labour party are actually more comfortable in opposition. They can talk equality, social justice, helping the poor, grand schemes., problems in the middle east - all without the harsh reality of ever having to cost and justify it to the paying electorate.

 

[villaglint]

I think everybody seems to have got so angry and disorientated that they are failing to see both sides. 

It is obvious that Corbyn has connected with a certain amount of people especially the young and that his ideology and message being you know different from the Tories is a refreshing change when we've had almost two decades where the top two parties were battling over semantics and methods of implementation rather than policies.

It is also obvious that the party have zero faith in his ability to lead and to win an election. That is not insignificant. The media are systemically against him and he hasn't done enough to cut through. Of course it isn't easy but Bernie Sanders has shown that getting a message through despite the media is possible and that is in America! 

Would I be crazy to think that if someone really wants to unite the party they need to adopt a lot of Corbyns ideas in a way that allows them to take the rest of the party with them. More importantly they need to take PR much much more seriously. I think Corbyn sneers at it a bit probably remembering the early Blair media management days. 

If they ditch him and go bland and centre ground it'll be Ed Milliband but much worse and it'll be UKIP or Tories picking up the pieces. If they keep him he'll get my vote but I think the damage is done and the overall result will be broadly similar.

My biggest lament here is not Corbyn it's the lack of talent within the Labour.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by villaglint

[hippo]

3 minutes ago, villaglint said:

I think everybody seems to have got so angry and disorientated that they are failing to see both sides. 

It is obvious that Corbyn has connected with a certain amount of people especially the young and that his ideology and message being you know different from the Tories is a refreshing change when we've had almost two decades where the top two parties were battling over semantics and methods of implementation rather than policies.

It is also obvious that the party have zero faith in his ability to lead and to win an election. That is not insignificant. The media are systemically against him and he hasn't done enough to cut through. Of course it isn't easy but Bernie Sanders has shown that getting a message through despite the media is possible and that is in America! 

Would I be crazy to think that if someone really wants to unite the party they need to adopt a lot of Corbyns ideas in a way that allows them to take the rest of the party with them. More importantly they need to take PR much much more seriously. I think Corbyn sneers at it a bit probably remembering the early Blair media management days. 

If they ditch him and go bland and centre ground it'll be Ed Milliband but much worse and it'll be UKIP or Tories picking up the pieces. If they keep him he'll get my vote but I think the damage is done and the overall result will be broadly similar.

My biggest lament here is not Corbyn it's the lack of talent within the Labour.

 

 

To me its a question of how badly Labour loose the next election. And under Corbyn I fear it would be worse than Michael foot in 1982, and could even come 3rd in a general election.

Owen Smith or Angela Eagle could IMO start a rebuilding process similar to that undertaken by Neil Kinnock. Keep Corbyn and that rebuilding  process doesn't even start.

 

[hippo]

1 hour ago, dAVe80 said:

Can anyone please point me to evendence that the Socialist Workers Party are behind Corbyn, and his election to party leader? I'm also wanting to know why are they linked in with Momentum, who it seems are also seen as a loony fringe element? Only going on my own experiences of going to a couple of Momentum meeting, but of the vast majority of Momentum members I spoke to, most had been Labour Party members for years, and a see the SWP as a bit extreme, the same was anyone else does.

The Banners at the keep Corbyn protest. ?

[hippo]

One thing I don't understand is how the leadership rules can be challenged in court. So long as the rules don't break any laws - the labour party can elect its leader how it likes ? 

(Forget whether you are pro or anti corbyn) - But can a judge anywhere impose leadership rules on such an organisation ? - 

[villaglint]

6 minutes ago, hippo said:

To me its a question of how badly Labour loose the next election. And under Corbyn I fear it would be worse than Michael foot in 1982, and could even come 3rd in a general election.

Owen Smith or Angela Eagle could IMO start a rebuilding process similar to that undertaken by Neil Kinnock. Keep Corbyn and that rebuilding  process doesn't even start.

 

I can't agree with that like I said whether you agree with him or not Corbyn is connecting with quite a number of people I really don't think Angela Eagles will do that so I can't see how she would be so much better.

Like I said though I think everyone is disorientated right now. Tories, Labour, UKIP everyone myself included. 

I remember when they used to call the Summer the silly season in politics. Starting to see why that's true and thinking what we really need is an enforced brake from everything and we'll come back to it after a nice holiday and some swimming in the Med. I'm sure the market will understand.

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, hippo said:

One thing I don't understand is how the leadership rules can be challenged in court. So long as the rules don't break any laws - the labour party can elect its leader how it likes ? 

(Forget whether you are pro or anti corbyn) - But can a judge anywhere impose leadership rules on such an organisation ? - 

What if the rules are so poorly written they don't cover what to do with a sitting leader?

I believe (but haven't checked) that fantastic middle of the road Ed Milliband changed the rules and specified that all challengers must have the backing of 20% of the MP's.

But Corbyn isn't a challenger is he. He's the very popular incumbent leader that would very likely win if 'allowed' to stand. Ed's parting gift there, some fudge.