Jeremy Corbyn

[arcade fireman]

10 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

you mean like the local election up in oldham west where labour actually increased their majority to a higher level then it ever had been under previous regimes? after weeks of the naysayers like yourself claiming they were going to be fed to the sharks and they hadn't a hope in hell of even retaining the seat? and that being the oldham which is one of the hotbeds of supposed anti immigration feeling in this nation? those local elections? right!

The anti corbyn `mob` seem `unable` to grasp the fact that just because the fucking daily mail claims corbyn is universally detested by the public doesnt make it so!  i

Its funny the guy above going on and on about how all corbyn talks about is trident! what planet are you on? pmqs today he was asking questions on tax avoidance which is a major public issue at the moment,, hes used previous sessions to discuss lots of other issues in the public interest......of course he talks about trident when hes asked about trident and he clearly has strong feelings on the issue because of his links to cnd et.......of course if hes asked about a topic by an interviewer hes going to express his feelings on that topic....thats how interviews work!....but to claim hes going on and on and ignoring everything else is just laughable.

oh and you like polls? well thats good because polls can put your argument down as well as support it!

http://news.sky.com/story/1604855/corbyn-more-popular-than-miliband-poll

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4622011.ece

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/20/jeremy-corbyn-is-legitimately-more-popular-than-david-cameron-now-according-to-latest-poll-5516330/

 

Labour under Miliband increased their majority and had a fair swing towards them in most of their heartlands - Merseyside, North East etc. Where they actually lost seats and vote share was in other places - particularly the marginal Tory/Labour seats. So Oldham doesn't tell us a great deal at all. 

No one is saying Corbyn is "universally detested". Clearly there's a wide range of opinions in this country, but if you look at the voters Labour desperately need to win over he will win nowhere near enough of those people over, and will likely lose more voters for Labour than he gains. 

The vast majority of polls out there show Corbyn is the worst performing Labour leader in a generation, that Miliband at this stage had considerably better approval ratings and indeed had Labour drawing close with the Tories in those polls, as opposed to being around 8-10 points behind under Corbyn. 

[russycarps]

53 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

Maybe things need to get worse before they can even start to get better. At the last election, the choice was going down the wrong path quickly (Tory),  or going down the wrong path on a slightly more circuitous route (labour)

I'm not sure I follow you on this. Are you saying miliband's labour would have behaved in exactly the same was as the tories have so far, just over a longer period of time? You cant be serious surely.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, tonyblair said:

I think the UK, and its total embracing of capitalism at its worst, is heading for something pretty awful. Labour haven't come up with anything to indicate that with them, it'll be much different. 

If they did, do you think 'the people' want something that's much different?

'The people' would certainly like some minor tweaks - in both directions - but I don't detect anything of wanting much different (unless you think Russell Brand counts for much?).

 

[russycarps]

12 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

I think the UK, and its total embracing of capitalism at its worst, is heading for something pretty awful. Labour haven't come up with anything to indicate that with them, it'll be much different. 

I saw The Big Short last night. It was pretty depressing

But the entire history of this country is based on capitalism. We invented capitalism. It's the only reason this tiny island enjoys the wealth and freedom it does. Our modern day economy is entirely dependent on it. 

The vast majority of people want to protect their way of life at all costs. There is no appetite for socialism in the 5th richest country in the world. The views of people on a glastonbury forum are those of a microscopic minority. 

I havent seen the big short, but it's thanks to people like them that you live your fabulous london lifestyle. A lifestyle that is the envy of almost the entire world.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by russycarps

[Comfy Bean]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yeah, cos it would have been just the same to have had fewer cuts and more investment, with the most-leftwing programme for 20+ years.

It wasn't perfect, but just look what people like you caused to happen by not voting Labour. It's *you* that might as well be the tory, not those you condemn who understand what solidarity is.

Solidarity isn't all about me-me-me.

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

Lets make this clear...it wasnt the people who didnt vote labour who caused this......it was the labour party not bothering to present a good enough plan to attract those people.........sheer arrogance of those with this attitude....no party even on the `left`(and I use that term loosely with millibands labour) has the `right` to peoples votes....they have to earn them.......and labour simply didnt....why should or would these people vote for something that doesnt show any real change from the evil system already in place if that is what they oppose? this comes back to millibands labour refusing to have the balls to fully take on the tories......and the fact that such cowardice and tory party pandering turned so so many people off of voting for them.....is that the fault of the voters? no because labour simply didnt do enough to convince them they were worth a vote! you want to know why labour didnt attract these peoples votes? abstaining on issues, voting with the tories on issues, refusing to rise to the occasion and go on the attack even when the target was right there in front of them.....THAT is why labour lost the election. because they were fucking wet and without an identity, as I said before right up to just before the election they were even trying to pander to the right wing! trying to get voters from ukip with there `anti immigration mugs` etc.......and in the process alienating a hell of a lot of people who may have voted for them.

they had noone to blame but themselves. simple as.

your attitude seems to be `well its useless even trying to change things, thats risking to many votes we should just go along with the tories and not make a fuss then maybe people will vote for us` ...........all I can say is FUCK THAT!

I pity the labour party when I see firebrands on the left like corbyn, abbot, skinner etc attacked by there own party because those mps consider actual fucking opposition as a vote loser` it shows the state of things it really does.

Maybe youd like simon danuzick as leader next eh? after all his cowardly attacks on his own leader and his supporters in the right wing press (he was writing columns in the daily mail ffs) sounded right up your street! or how about liz kendall? she had great ideas she did! lets beat the tories by agreeing with the tories! or harman? she of the `tory plans for welfare arent all that bad so its my opinion labour members should not stand in their way`.....fucking great! lol!

Tell you what if you lot get your way and corbyns driven out you may as well call time on the entire mess because we will basically have a one party system.....by which I mean we`ll have 2 parties but I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference so fuck it eh!
 

Neil, what`s your view on the views of the Leader of our biggest Union ?

He doesn`t appear to share your view that the Labour policies were the most left wing in 20+years.

I don`t agree with everything CPengu has said but his views are more in tune with Labours biggest supporters than yours appear to be.

Speaking up my way the other week he said Labour should apologies for betraying Scotland. I agree with CP about Labour abstaining on some of the big issues and I am surprised that you don`t think getting rid of pointless Nuclear weapons isn`t worth fighting for.

As you know there is an alternative option for us up here who will stand against the renewal of Trident. Always have always will. Labour used to be and still should be taking on that fight....in my opinion of course.

Here`s more from the Union fella.....full article link at the end.

Speaking to journalists at the conference in Clydebank, McCluskey said: “The ideology of New Labour effectively alienated large swathes of the Scottish working class, which manifested itself quite dramatically last May. Kezia has to effectively say Labour is under new management where we apologise for betraying you and we will start from scratch to try and build that trust up.”

He indicated that Dugdale should pursue a left wing agenda to win back support as he conceded that the SNP was likely to win even more Holyrood seats in May.

“The truth is, from all the opinion polls it looks as if the SNP are going to make further gains in May,” McCluskey said.

“The neo-Liberal agenda that was pursued to its extreme by the last Labour government and the Labour leaderships that followed made it appear in Scotland that Labour wasn’t on the side of ordinary people. In fact, the SNP stole most of the radical clothes that historically belonged and should have belonged to Labour.

 

Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/len-mccluskey-kezia-dugdale-should-apologise-to-scots-voters-1-4003163#ixzz3yZUxGyKb 
 

 

[alframsey]

I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but would just liked say I bloody love the direction the Labour Party is heading in, finally a party I can fully get behind. I worked for Corbyn's leadership campaign in the West Midlands and I was moved to tears when he won.

once we sort out our internal politics, hopefully by the end of the year, then we can start to speaks the rest of the country and IMO will do very well.

[Martin Ashford]

On ‎27‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 11:49 AM, eFestivals said:

To any intelligent person it's also obvious that the media manipulate things to generate interest in their publication - but you felt the need to mention that 'obvious' part while not making reference to the 'obvious' impact to instead makes lots of comments that dismissed the impact.

 

I'm opposed to Corbyn because he's proven himself a crap leader, who - opposite to his campaign promises - has no intention of having a debate about issues (just see his "I won't press the button" words alongside his laughable 'defence review'), and who has already made himself unelectable by concentrating on issues most people care little for, but where if they care they tend to oppose his view and not agree with it.

I want a leader who wants to do more than shout loudly but do nothing at all because he'll never get elected. I'd rather a leader who might bring some relief to the hardest hit.

And i'll point out that I'm waaaaay to the left of Corbyn, but not so up myself to think everyone else is.

As the polls get to show, he's the worst major political leader in UK political history. His support is shrinking, not growing.

 

Is this where it gets to the comedy of saying "it's because the tories are scared of him"?

 

I have to disagree somewhat. Labour Party membership has gone through the roof since Corbyn's election. Its now about half a million people and still climbing (and I'm one of those who has finally joined precisely because of Corbyn's opposition to Trident, his stand on austerity, etc). Corbyn is still hanging in there, squaring up to the Tories and landing punches despite the most vindictive media campaign in living memory. We have several generations of young people who have never experienced any  politician taking such a stand against the established norms. This is highly significant and is the reason why so many in the political class are petrified of him. Corbyn 's election is a paradigm shift in British politics. The leadership thing is almost secondary but he's her to stay. I see neither Foals or Disclosure are exclusives for Reading, therefore my guess is that both are already signed for Glastonbury.

[arcade fireman]

Labour Party membership numbers really are quite irrelevant. Well, maybe if Labour Party membership reached several million it wouldn't be, but a few hundred thousand people is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the numbers of votes needed to get a majority in a GE, or even to just to get the Tories out of power. 

Corbyn may be putting a fight up at the dispatch box. But there is absolutely no evidence that he can put up any kind of a fight at the ballot box (save for a Labour victory in a very safe seat), and plenty of evidence he won't. And without that, this will all end in tears. 

[russycarps]

24 minutes ago, Martin Ashford said:

I have to disagree somewhat. Labour Party membership has gone through the roof since Corbyn's election. Its now about half a million people and still climbing (and I'm one of those who has finally joined precisely because of Corbyn's opposition to Trident, his stand on austerity, etc). Corbyn is still hanging in there, squaring up to the Tories and landing punches despite the most vindictive media campaign in living memory. We have several generations of young people who have never experienced any  politician taking such a stand against the established norms. This is highly significant and is the reason why so many in the political class are petrified of him. Corbyn 's election is a paradigm shift in British politics. The leadership thing is almost secondary but he's her to stay. I see neither Foals or Disclosure are exclusives for Reading, therefore my guess is that both are already signed for Glastonbury.

Problem is those half a million people aren't enough votes to get him elected. I just don't see him engaging with ordinary people at all, and the polls seem to agree.

The fact he's a Londoner doesn't help either.

[Winslow Leach]

Labour's largest ever membership was in its wilderness years in the 50s. The number of members is irrelevant. 

 

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

Labour under Miliband increased their majority and had a fair swing towards them in most of their heartlands - Merseyside, North East etc. Where they actually lost seats and vote share was in other places - particularly the marginal Tory/Labour seats. So Oldham doesn't tell us a great deal at all. 

 

I agree, here is no path to a labour victory without  persuading a significant amount of those who voted tory to switch to labour.  I work in an office full of people who I imagine voted for Blair and then switched to Cameron, they just aren't going to switch to Corbyn.  While its great if Corbyn can win over some disgruntled labour voters in their heartland, increasing labour majorities wont win the next election 

3 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I don`t agree with everything CPengu has said but his views are more in tune with Labours biggest supporters than yours appear to be.

 

It depends whether you define labour supporters as people who are members of the party, or people who generally vote labour.  Both groups are quite different and the second group is significantly bigger.

3 hours ago, alframsey said:

 

once we sort out our internal politics, hopefully by the end of the year, then we can start to speaks the rest of the country and IMO will do very well.

I think your falling into the trap of thinking the country thinks like you do.  I know that my views are out of step with the country, while I know a politician standing with my values wouldn't win a general election.  I therefore have to choose between politicians who can offer some of the things I want, or others who can offer none.

I have to disagree somewhat. Labour Party membership has gone through the roof since Corbyn's election. Its now about half a million people and still climbing (and I'm one of those who has finally joined precisely because of Corbyn's opposition to Trident, his stand on austerity, etc). Corbyn is still hanging in there, squaring up to the Tories and landing punches despite the most vindictive media campaign in living memory. We have several generations of young people who have never experienced any  politician taking such a stand against the established norms. This is highly significant and is the reason why so many in the political class are petrified of him. Corbyn 's election is a paradigm shift in British politics. The leadership thing is almost secondary but he's her to stay. I see neither Foals or Disclosure are exclusives for Reading, therefore my guess is that both are already signed for Glastonbury.

How are theses members distributed, are they predominantly in safe seats or focused in the swing consistencies labour need to win.  I always welcome the youth being involved in politics, but they will always be more flaky then the old and some will drift away.  I'm not convinced the political class are petrified of him, but respect your opinion to think differently.

[Winslow Leach]

3 hours ago, alframsey said:

I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but would just liked say I bloody love the direction the Labour Party is heading in, finally a party I can fully get behind. I worked for Corbyn's leadership campaign in the West Midlands and I was moved to tears when he won.

once we sort out our internal politics, hopefully by the end of the year, then we can start to speaks the rest of the country and IMO will do very well.

Genuine question: what is your opinion on the appointment of Seamus Milne as director of Strategy and Comms for the party?

[alframsey]

13 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

 

I think your falling into the trap of thinking the country thinks like you do.  I know that my views are out of step with the country, while I know a politician standing with my values wouldn't win a general election.  I therefore have to choose between politicians who can offer some of the things I want, or others who can offer none.

I think it's awfully presumptuous of you to claim to know these things, a lot can happen between now and 2020. Would we win a general election tomorrow? I doubt it. Can we win in 2020? I believe so.

Edited January 28, 2016 by alframsey

[arcade fireman]

17 minutes ago, alframsey said:

I think it's awfully presumptuous of you to claim to know these things, a lot can happen between now and 2020. Would we win a general election tomorrow? I doubt it. Can we win in 2020? I believe so.

A lot can happen, but first impressions are massive and Corbyn's first impression with the public has been disastrous. Fundamentally even if things go wrong, there are far too many people who wouldn't trust him to pick up the pieces. 

I think given the size of his victory it's legitimate for him to have a year or two, but if Labour's council election results in May 2016 and May 2017 are poor and support nationally shows no signs of improving, surely it will be time for change? At least any new incumbent would still have 2 and a half to three years run at the next GE. 

Remember oppositions usually do considerably better in the polls between elections. Milliband was 7-8 points ahead of the Tories at one stage (and even allowing for systematic polling errors, that receded a lot by 2015). Similarly the Tories sometime in 2008 looked well on course for a big majority, but were quite a way short in 2010 as it happened. So is Corbyn is still performing similarly in a year and a half, it will arguably be high time to go with the evidence. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by arcade fireman

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, alframsey said:

I think it's awfully presumptuous of you to claim to know these things, a lot can happen between now and 2020. Would we win a general election tomorrow? I doubt it. Can we win in 2020? I believe so.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being presumptuous. Tory MPs were being presumptuous when they decided ids was a dud before dumping him. There's no point doing badly for the sake of it, if evidence points elsewhere.

If you believe labour can win in 2020 I suggest you go to the bookies as your the first person I have heard say that! A route to a labour victory has to involve people switching in labour v Tory marginals, I can't see how that can happen under Corbyn.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

Lets make this clear...it wasnt the people who didnt vote labour who caused this......it was the labour party not bothering to present a good enough plan to attract those people

It depends.

Those who were repelled by what Labour suggested and find the tories to be better? They've got what they want. That's how democracy works.

Those who complain loudly about what the tories are doing now but couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour despite the benefits it would have brought? It's very DEFINITELY the fault of such people that the tories are in power.

Those people put their own desire of self-interested-only moral perfection at the ballot box above the people they claim to want to help. It's all about me-me-me and not about doing anything to help.

It doesn't get more Thatcherite!!!

 

Quote

Tell you what if you lot get your way and corbyns driven out you may as well call time on the entire mess because we will basically have a one party system.....by which I mean we`ll have 2 parties but I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference so fuck it eh!
 

Yeah, because the NHS doesn't get more money, schools keep their leaking roofs, and the provisions of the welfare state are never increased by Labour govts such as Blair's, eh?

The one-party-staters are those who will not join in common cause and solidarity with others - and that's far more the Corbynistas than it is the Blairites.

Blairites recognise that you can do nothing without power.

It's the me-me-me Thatcherites who falsely believe themselves leftists who would rather not have power and are happy to let others suffer as a consequence of their 'higher' (snigger) moral (snigger) calling (snigger) .

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Neil, what`s your view on the views of the Leader of our biggest Union ?

He doesn`t appear to share your view that the Labour policies were the most left wing in 20+years.

I don`t agree with everything CPengu has said but his views are more in tune with Labours biggest supporters than yours appear to be.

Speaking up my way the other week he said Labour should apologies for betraying Scotland. I agree with CP about Labour abstaining on some of the big issues and I am surprised that you don`t think getting rid of pointless Nuclear weapons isn`t worth fighting for.

As you know there is an alternative option for us up here who will stand against the renewal of Trident. Always have always will. Labour used to be and still should be taking on that fight....in my opinion of course.

Here`s more from the Union fella.....full article link at the end.

Speaking to journalists at the conference in Clydebank, McCluskey said: “The ideology of New Labour effectively alienated large swathes of the Scottish working class, which manifested itself quite dramatically last May. Kezia has to effectively say Labour is under new management where we apologise for betraying you and we will start from scratch to try and build that trust up.”

He indicated that Dugdale should pursue a left wing agenda to win back support as he conceded that the SNP was likely to win even more Holyrood seats in May.

“The truth is, from all the opinion polls it looks as if the SNP are going to make further gains in May,” McCluskey said.

“The neo-Liberal agenda that was pursued to its extreme by the last Labour government and the Labour leaderships that followed made it appear in Scotland that Labour wasn’t on the side of ordinary people. In fact, the SNP stole most of the radical clothes that historically belonged and should have belonged to Labour.

Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/len-mccluskey-kezia-dugdale-should-apologise-to-scots-voters-1-4003163#ixzz3yZUxGyKb 
 

The leader of the biggest union can be wrong, same as anybody.

With regard to you pet want of a showered-with-other-people's cash Scotland, you refuse to ever consider if there is actually the available cash to do so, either from within Scotland or from outside of Scotland.

(the LibDems in Scotland are suggesting tax rises to help the poor. The self-righteous snippers are saying "we don't want to help the poor, we want to help ourselves instead")

And now you're doing the same for the rest of the country, who's money you *DESPERATELY* want but otherwise want to tell to fuck off.

There's self-interested - the Thatcherite me-me-me - or there's accepting that the country is a democracy where there's a range of different views you have to work within. In any democracy, the winner is the one who can get the most people on-side.

What I might want myself means fuck all alongside what might be achieved for the benefit of other people.

Solidarity. Common cause. And not me-first like any Thatcherite.

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, Martin Ashford said:

I have to disagree somewhat. Labour Party membership has gone through the roof since Corbyn's election.

and wider support has shrunk, because Corbyn is the first leader in UK political history to have not caused a new-leader bounce.

That's a disaster for any party which wishes to be elected to be able to change anything at all.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, Martin Ashford said:

Corbyn 's election is a paradigm shift in British politics.

:Like Michael Foot's was, you mean?

You're old enough to remember that, surely?

 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, alframsey said:

I think it's awfully presumptuous of you to claim to know these things, a lot can happen between now and 2020. Would we win a general election tomorrow? I doubt it. Can we win in 2020? I believe so.

I read shit loads of public opinion on politics - reams and reams of it.

And do you know, you're the very first person I've ever seen - apart from Corbyn and his closest sidekicks - say that you believe he can win in 2020.

 

[pogal]

16 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If they did, do you think 'the people' want something that's much different?

'The people' would certainly like some minor tweaks - in both directions - but I don't detect anything of wanting much different (unless you think Russell Brand counts for much?).

 

Ooooh, this a good debate.

On the Brand thing, while he may not speak for 'a majority' on many issues, I think he - and you can argue his arguments are, ahem, regurgitated from others at best - raises legitimate questions about the fundamental need for reform at the very heart of this thing we call the British democratic system. Electoral borders, first past the post and many other basic things are designed for certain purposes by those in power, a 'ruling class' if you like (which I do believe exists). Regardless of their political persuasion, 'the system' as it stands impedes major change. So, I agree with him on the fact that regardless of whether change is wanted, we do not have a system that allows us to debate it or vote for it (I agree with him and those he cites/references/rips off on many other things too, but that's a different debate).

On the election, it is the job of each political party to present ideas which we want to vote for, that much is true. However, the framework within which they have to do that is, to hark back to the above, is massively flawed. TV debates, election broadcasts and our soundbite media do not allow for healthy and full debate. But as I say, it is what it is currently and every party had to work best within it, but it sure as hell ain't fair.

Personally, I think there is a desire for change. The NHS could be a turning point, as could the increasingly swinging cuts being imposed on local authorities from Whitehall.

The system will kick back against any major impetus for it, however. Just look at the London riots. However they started, they became a symbol on unhappiness in many, many communities. The state was frightened by an event which showed that should people choose to rise up, they cannot be controlled. So what happened? They jailed petty thieves for months, even years, citing a hard line on crime. And for a hard line on crime, read 'if you rise up in numbers, you will be punished severely'.

Crikey, rambling already, apologies.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, pogal said:

Ooooh, this a good debate.

On the Brand thing, while he may not speak for 'a majority' on many issues, I think he - and you can argue his arguments are, ahem, regurgitated from others at best - raises legitimate questions about the fundamental need for reform at the very heart of this thing we call the British democratic system. Electoral borders, first past the post and many other basic things are designed for certain purposes by those in power, a 'ruling class' if you like (which I do believe exists). Regardless of their political persuasion, 'the system' as it stands impedes major change. So, I agree with him on the fact that regardless of whether change is wanted, we do not have a system that allows us to debate it or vote for it (I agree with him and those he cites/references/rips off on many other things too, but that's a different debate).

I have no problem with electoral reform. It's something I've been wanting for 30+ years.

But it's worth pointing out here that Corbyn has huge problems with it. He's never going to back PR.

If political fragmentation happens before a change to PR, then the tories rule forever .. and political fragmentation is the path of the Corbynistas.

If Corbynistas won't accept there's other different views to theirs 'on the left', then those others will find someone else to vote for that might accept their different ideas.

 

Quote

On the election, it is the job of each political party to present ideas which we want to vote for, that much is true. However, the framework within which they have to do that is, to hark back to the above, is massively flawed. TV debates, election broadcasts and our soundbite media do not allow for healthy and full debate. But as I say, it is what it is currently and every party had to work best within it, but it sure as hell ain't fair.

Yep. You can scream like a 2 year old that "it's just not fair" or you can accept that's what you have to work within and get on with working with it to try and achieve victory/

It's not going to change without first achieving the power to change it.

BTW, how many people missed that Labour had a manifesto commitment under Miliband to implement the Leveson recommendations?

(and I wonder if those people also missed that that was one of the few things that SNP didn't copy from Labour's manifesto .. and that's of course nothing to do with how the Salmond had already sold the First Minister's badge of office to Murdoch [just as the evidence at Leveson got to prove with solid facts!]).

But apparently, making things better isn't wanted, unless the whole world is changed to me-me-me's image of perfection.

 

Quote

Personally, I think there is a desire for change. The NHS could be a turning point, as could the increasingly swinging cuts being imposed on local authorities from Whitehall.

The only change I'm seeing is much more of the Thatcherite me-me-me coming from self-declared 'leftists'.

Nothing of common cause and solidarity, the thing that actually wins elections for Labour.

It's worth checking the facts of *every* Labour victory!

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by eFestivals

[pogal]

I certainly noted the Leveson commitment, as it played a part in choosing where my x went, but I accept many wouldn't know, or care (and it's worth noting it is possible to disagree with Leveson and still desire change within the free press. Again, a separate debate). 

My point is, the very system which allows for power is bent. I don't agree it's childish to highlight that, while still working within what we have. As I said, it is what it is, and they all have to work within it, but I maintain, it isn't a fair system.

And I don't think it's fair to label people as being 'me-me-me Thatcherites' if they choose to maintain a pureness of belief. If someone has a belief, be it left, right or centre, then they have the right to stick to that and pursue it in whatever form they like. The beauty of belief is that they are for people to choose, and they should not have to compromise. Your point on compromising for power is correct, that is probably the only way to what we call power, but should people choose not to compromise in the pursuit of power - or believe that the Labour party should not, then that is their prerogative. Will they forever be in the wilderness? Perhaps.

If the common cause is not there, replaced instead with a half-hearted compromise, how can - and why should - people unify behind it? I think there is a desire to change things, which is very well demonstrated, and has been numerous times. 

But I accept it is the next step where the majority who want change (I believe) cannot unite. But if that is the way it is to be, then so be it*.

* However, I reserve the right to bemoan a system which does not allow for the majority I believe exists to exert change.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, pogal said:

My point is, the very system which allows for power is bent. I don't agree it's childish to highlight that, while still working within what we have. As I said, it is what it is, and they all have to work within it, but I maintain, it isn't a fair system.

It's not the highlighting of it I was ... erm... highlighting.

It was the expectation of some of the more rabid Corbynistas that the system should just change to suit them, and that "it's not fair" if it doesn't.

The only possibility of victory is to accept reality is reality, and work from reality. You have to build a victory, it doesn't get delivered to you because you think the current system isn't fair.

 

1 minute ago, pogal said:

And I don't think it's fair to label people as being 'me-me-me Thatcherites' if they choose to maintain a pureness of belief.

It's not the 'pureness of belief' I have an issue with. My own 'pure' blows those people's own statements away

It's their refusal on accept that everyone has the same pureness of belief but with different ideas of what that 'pure' is, and that everyone has to think just like they do else they're a 'red tory' or something equally pathetic.

Victory comes from getting people on side, not from repelling them because they won't accept your every word.

 

1 minute ago, pogal said:

If someone has a belief, be it left, right or centre, then they have the right to stick to that and pursue it in whatever form they like. The beauty of belief is that they are for people to choose, and they should not have to compromise. Your point on compromising for power is correct, that is probably the only way to what we call power, but should people choose not to compromise in the pursuit of power - or believe that the Labour party should not, then that is their prerogative. Will they forever be in the wilderness? Perhaps.

If people won't compromise for power, that's up to them.

I just wish they weren't so self-absorbed to think that everyone else should compromise to their way of thinking, while they make no compromise at all.

Because if they won't compromise, there's no reason why those who disagree with them should either, and all we're left with is political fragmentation against a solid block of united tories - and so the tories win forever.

 

1 minute ago, pogal said:

If the common cause is not there, replaced instead with a half-hearted compromise, how can - and why should - people unify behind it?

Because if they won't compromise, the tories are in power.

What's worse? A bit of compromise, or the tories in power?

For the purists, they'd rather others suffer real hardship than them be given some relieve via compromise, because for those purists their own moral pureness is rated over doing some actual good.

Do you want to do some good? Or do you want to wear your 'pure' badge with pointless pride?

 

1 minute ago, pogal said:

I think there is a desire to change things, which is very well demonstrated, and has been numerous times.

There's a desire for some relatively small changes.

There is no desire to overturn all of society as it is.

If there was really a desire for change, the only discussion here would be about who is going to benefit from each of us not going to Glastonbury, rather than us anticipating what a great time we're going to have for ourselves while others suffer.

From any 'pure' point of view we're each no different to the worst tory about this. It's why claims of pureness are ultimately laughable.

[DeanoL]

19 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Do you think the military have the authority to fire after Jezza as PM has told them not to?

 

Do you think they'll care, when the doomsday scenario people are creating is that we've had nukes launched at us, and he's deciding whether to retaliate or not? That decision is purely in the hands of the people that make it physically happen at that point.

As for the rest, do you not think the debate around things in the media has widened significantly the past year?