All things Labour Party

And someone said the right don't control the media...Although the American writer, Bill Bryson, a former fleet street reporter himself, makes this abundantly clear in several of his books but the problem is, people are now more prone to believe this nonsense.

 

For example, turn on channel 4 or 5, or even 1 and see: saints and scrounger, benefit street, benefits Britain, Jeremy Kyle, Immigration street...to name but a few, the media is awash with this right wing nonsense and the public are spoon fed to believe everyone on the dole or disabled, or poor is a scrounger out to steal their tax money and that they've clearly not done a day's work in their lives....oh and that immigrants are coming to rape out wives, take from our kids mouths, ruin the NHS and steal benefits.

 

Joe public now buys this by the barrel load, why should anyone on here be any different?

You do realise this gullible "Joe Public" person you are sneeringly referring to is the person that you need to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, don't you?

You do realise this gullible "Joe Public" person you are sneeringly referring to is the person that you need to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, don't you?

Never said it wasn't going to be an uphill battle. Either way, I think Russell Brand backing him is the kiss of death. Besides, I no more sneeringly refer to these people as a lot of posters on here do those being beaten down by the current austerity measures. Let's hear it? 1,2,3...we're all it together! Although having the fox hunting bill pushed first was even too obvious for them!....More obvious still, people campaigning against it, like Ricky Gevais, being labelled "left-wing loonies" by the all powerful media.

Never said it wasn't going to be an uphill battle. Either way, I think Russell Brand backing him is the kiss of death. Besides, I no more sneeringly refer to these people as a lot of posters on here do those being beaten down by the current austerity measures. Let's hear it? 1,2,3...we're all it together! Although having the fox hunting bill pushed first was even too obvious for them!....More obvious still, people campaigning against it, like Ricky Gevais, being labelled "left-wing loonies" by the all powerful media.

Sometimes it is quite difficult to follow your rather scattergun contributions to this debate.

Sometimes it is quite difficult to follow your rather scattergun contributions to this debate.

It's a monologue approach coming from someone doing about 12 things at once and who's neuro pathways are a little frazzled after 50 odd brain surgeries which causes me to make connections you probably don't see....kind of on the spectrum but I'm sure I've said this several times, usually after you whitterly use such remarks.

Hockey! In political debate - never show weakness!

Hockey! In political debate - never show weakness!

Good point!...Ignore that.

Oh fo ****s sake, he talked to a radical Muslim, big deal. Hes obviously got the intelligence to know that the Palestinian issue cannot be resolved unless both sides talk to each other.

 

You have to be thick as **** to think he's a racist for just talking to someone.

Why did he deny it then?

If there's nothing wrong with it, why did he try to claim he'd never heard of the bloke?

Signs that a virtual civil war might break out within the Labour Party should Jeremy Corbyn become their next leader - well according to the Telegraph anyway:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11812608/Corbyn-faces-post-election-vote-of-no-confidence-from-fellow-Labour-MPs.html

This one could run and run ...

https://medium.com/@Labour_Pains/13-reasons-not-to-vote-for-jeremy-corbyn-as-leader-of-the-labour-party-11d5656cac88

 

This is a great summary of why not to vote Jeremy.

 

Obviously this guy getting a bit of grief on twitter from assorted Jezabel dinlows demanding he SHOW SOME EVIDENCE THAT CORBYN CAN'T WIN IN NUNEATON!!!

Yeah, I'm starting to think it isn't worth the bother. Not aimed at anyone on here, but my experience of debating with Corbynites is it's like arguing with the friggin' Moonies.

Assuming he gets elected, then he will have five years worth of Tory rule to attack and let's be honest, there will be plenty of material for him. With Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Hunt in place, you're surely guaranteed a whole raft of easy pickings. He needs to campaign on the nationalisation of the railways, maintaining the NHS and ensuring corporations and the uber rich pay the correct levels of tax. This doesn't mean tax rises across the board but closing the loopholes and requiring companies other than sole traders to publish their tax contributions. He also needs to, like the SNP did successfully, tap into social media and mobilise the disenchanted and disengaged young voters.

His main hurdles are:

The media - very Tory biased

Boundary changes - designed to enhance Tory marginal

Scotland - to convince the Scots they are better served by Labour rather than the SNP; and

Lack of lieutenants - has not got a great deal of quality on the opposition benches

Complete and utter rubbish . The boundary changes aren't " designed to enhance the Tory marginals " .

Assuming he gets elected, then he will have five years worth of Tory rule to attack and let's be honest, there will be plenty of material for him. With Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Hunt in place, you're surely guaranteed a whole raft of easy pickings.

As evidenced by the result of the last General Election where that raft of easy pickings gave Miliband the ammunition to sweep to victory.

Miliband was unelectable as a personality; let's be realistic, he was bereft of any charisma and how many votes are won and lost on the perception of the leader over policy. This time around, we will have had five years of unadulterated Tory rule, no deflection onto the Lib Dems so we can see them in their true colours.

As for the boundary changes, you think they are designed to make it a fairer process or to enhance any other parties opportunity to win other than the Tory's?

Miliband was unelectable as a personality; let's be realistic, he was bereft of any charisma and how many votes are won and lost on the perception of the leader over policy.

And you think that Corbyn, rocking the "jaded geography teacher" look, will fare better in the eyes of the electorate?

Better than Ed, yes, better than the smarmy Tory's, I hope so. Recent pictures of him, not staged I hasten to add, travelling by bus and tube certainly add to his appeal. I think Dave's act of being for the people will wear off and they will show their true colours; namely backing their mate's in the banking industry etc.

For example, I think Corbyn could have articulated a pretty decent response to the selling of our stake in the Lloyd's group. At the time it makes a profit of £2.1bn in the six months leading up to June, for the sum of £3.2bn, Osborne sells off 6%. If I were him, I would want to question the logic of that; wouldn't you? Who buys that amount of shares? I doubt it is the likes of you or I, it is hedge funds and investment banks, exactly the same people who donate to the Conservatives.

Complete and utter rubbish . The boundary changes aren't " designed to enhance the Tory marginals " .

"Redrawing constituency boundaries to lock Labour out of power for a decades is at the top of the agenda for the new Conservative government, senior Tories have said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11593496/New-Commons-boundaries-top-Conservative-government-agenda.html

I shall be voting Corbyn as my voting slip has arrived.....I can't stand Conservatives or Labour or UKIP or Lib Dems....if I could vote Scots Nationalist, I would!

Better than Ed, yes, better than the smarmy Tory's, I hope so. Recent pictures of him, not staged I hasten to add, travelling by bus and tube certainly add to his appeal. I think Dave's act of being for the people will wear off and they will show their true colours; namely backing their mate's in the banking industry etc.

 

For example, I think Corbyn could have articulated a pretty decent response to the selling of our stake in the Lloyd's group. At the time it makes a profit of £2.1bn in the six months leading up to June, for the sum of £3.2bn, Osborne sells off 6%. If I were him, I would want to question the logic of that; wouldn't you? Who buys that amount of shares? I doubt it is the likes of you or I, it is hedge funds and investment banks, exactly the same people who donate to the Conservatives.

Thing is though that's just your bias talking. Personally I think Corbyn has some fairly common sense policies. The problem is the more radical policies that won't wash with majority of the public and the fact that he doesn't look, sound or act like a leader will play a huge part whether you like it or not. He will never be prime minister.

Thing is though that's just your bias talking. Personally I think Corbyn has some fairly common sense policies. The problem is the more radical policies that won't wash with majority of the public and the fact that he doesn't look, sound or act like a leader will play a huge part whether you like it or not. He will never be prime minister.

What DOES a leader look like?

How does he not sound like a leader - he's calm, authoritative,polite and doesn't resort to insults or sound bites. Oh I see what you mean!

How DOES a leader act?

What DOES a leader look like?

How does he not sound like a leader - he's calm, authoritative,polite and doesn't resort to insults or sound bites. Oh I see what you mean!

How DOES a leader act?

So you really think the average member of the general public will rush to vote for someone who neither looks nor behaves anything like a prime minister? It's really the main reason that ed did so poorly. He was pretty polite and seemed like a nice chap too. Being statesman-like and prime ministerial (like Obama, Blair, Thatcher and unlike Miliband and Brown etc) is a big part of it and he looks and seems too much like a stuffy university lecturer in my opinion for the swathes needed to vote for him. That's before you get into some of his dodgy links to shady characters and unsupported policies like the scrapping of trident. He will undoubtedly need the support of businesses and a portion of the middle class. What possible reason would they have to vote for him?

So you really think the average member of the general public will rush to vote for someone who neither looks nor behaves anything like a prime minister? It's really the main reason that ed did so poorly. He was pretty polite and seemed like a nice chap too. Being statesman-like and prime ministerial (like Obama, Blair, Thatcher and unlike Miliband and Brown etc) is a big part of it and he looks and seems too much like a stuffy university lecturer in my opinion for the swathes needed to vote for him. That's before you get into some of his dodgy links to shady characters and unsupported policies like the scrapping of trident. He will undoubtedly need the support of businesses and a portion of the middle class. What possible reason would they have to vote for him?

Aah I get you. You think appearance is far more important than principle. Fortunately a lot of people are less shallow than that. And dodgy links to shady characters? You mean like our current government that sucks up to places like Saudi Arabia because it wants to sell them arms even though that state funds terrorism?

Aah I get you. You think appearance is far more important than principle. Fortunately a lot of people are less shallow than that. And dodgy links to shady characters? You mean like our current government that sucks up to places like Saudi Arabia because it wants to sell them arms even though that state funds terrorism?

you can dismiss it all you want. in an age of 'leaders debates' and 24 hour news coverage..image is a huge deal now.

the country is not going to vote for an old dufflecoat wearing lefty to be our leader. just not going to happen

Aah I get you. You think appearance is far more important than principle. Fortunately a lot of people are less shallow than that. And dodgy links to shady characters? You mean like our current government that sucks up to places like Saudi Arabia because it wants to sell them arms even though that state funds terrorism?

I wasn't talking about me I was talking about the British public. Unfortunately the vast majority ARE that shallow which is the whole point. The key voters that Jeremy needs sadly aren't that fussed about things like Saudi Arabia. Their main concerns are about if he looks and sounds good and how his policies will affect them. It may be a shame but it's the truth. It didn't matter what Ed's policies were, what was important was that he looked like a dweeb and people didn't want a geek to represent us on the world stage.

Aah I get you. You think appearance is far more important than principle. Fortunately a lot of people are less shallow than that. And dodgy links to shady characters? You mean like our current government that sucks up to places like Saudi Arabia because it wants to sell them arms even though that state funds terrorism?

Well that's all splendidly naïve.

What DOES a leader look like?

How does he not sound like a leader - he's calm, authoritative,polite and doesn't resort to insults or sound bites. Oh I see what you mean!

How DOES a leader act?

A leader might act like someone who makes some effort to lead teams, departments to achieve something either in opposition or government. A leader might learn how to negotiate, compromise and align in order to get things done. A leader might demonstrably show he can enthuse groups to achieve specific things.

A leader of a political party might not have spent thirty years snug and unbothered on the back benches making no attempt to engage or participate in the leadership of his party or indeed the country. It doesn't take leadership to carp and rebel from the backbenches.

It's pretty plain that he entered the leadership race for theoretical reasons, to have a debate and then shuffle off. Probably saw a book in it for him. I'm pretty sure he didn't see it like this and I'd suggest he is absolutely bricking it. If he wins he'll be looking for an excuse to quit "on principle" within two years.

A leader might act like someone who makes some effort to lead teams, departments to achieve something either in opposition or government. A leader might learn how to negotiate, compromise and align in order to get things done. A leader might demonstrably show he can enthuse groups to achieve specific things.

 

A leader of a political party might not have spent thirty years snug and unbothered on the back benches making no attempt to engage or participate in the leadership of his party or indeed the country. It doesn't take leadership to carp and rebel from the backbenches.

 

It's pretty plain that he entered the leadership race for theoretical reasons, to have a debate and then shuffle off. I'm pretty sure he didn't see it like this and I'd suggest he is absolutely bricking it. If he wins he'll be looking for an excuse to quit "on principle" within two years.

I like a lot of what he has to say but he is totally unelectable, especially with the tory press barons as they are; rabid.

Aah I get you. You think appearance is far more important than principle. Fortunately a lot of people are less shallow than that. And dodgy links to shady characters? You mean like our current government that sucks up to places like Saudi Arabia because it wants to sell them arms even though that state funds terrorism?

Except Corbyn-mania is as vacuous a political movement as any in recent years. Not really much more than an empty vessel that has got a bit of a head of steam among some grass roots Labour activists and the Twitterverse.

Corbyn is a blank canvas that a section people have projected their own aspirations on, desperate for some UK version of the Arab Spring or Greece's political earthquake.

As much of a fad as anything in recent years. A fad for people who like to make out that they're definitely not shallow.

Aah I get you. You think appearance is far more important than principle. Fortunately a lot of people are less shallow than that. And dodgy links to shady characters? You mean like our current government that sucks up to places like Saudi Arabia because it wants to sell them arms even though that state funds terrorism?

Unfortunately, a lot more really really are not. Take mindless popular culture as your start point and work from there.

I like a lot of what he has to say but he is totally unelectable, especially with the tory press barons as they are; rabid.

He makes some decent points and probably has a role to play but his leadership could put the party back twenty years.

He makes some decent points and probably has a role to play but his leadership could put the party back twenty years.

You know, you're really only backing up the views of the smug tories on here right (maybe not the best thing if you are a labourite)? I was thinking about the first bill this government failed to put through...The fox hunting one; Thatcher would never be that obvious....or that foolish...so in many ways, I probably wouldn't compare yesterday to today as Dave isn't Thatcher and Corbyn certainly isn't Michael Foot.

http://www.politico.eu/article/corbyn-calamity-labour-leadership-race-uk-blair-hamas-murdoch/

This is good, and by this is good I obviously mean it reflects my own view.

.

http://www.politico.eu/article/corbyn-calamity-labour-leadership-race-uk-blair-hamas-murdoch/

 

This is good, and by this is good I obviously mean it reflects my own view.

 

.

he “seems [the] only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong”

And that is why he will get in..... and that is also why he is damned. The political system in this country is made up of people who's own beliefs have been compromised in the search of influence and power. He will be the hipsters/idealists choice, and the lamb to the slaughter. Regardless of his intelligence, articulated manner and standing, he will be trying to reshape the system that doesn't want him, he will be the Tory trying to organise the NHS, the liberal in Thanet, the socialist in Winchester.

He will open many cans of worms..... and he will clearly be delighted about that. Yet he will not be credible...... even in the eyes of his own party.

http://www.politico.eu/article/corbyn-calamity-labour-leadership-race-uk-blair-hamas-murdoch/

 

This is good, and by this is good I obviously mean it reflects my own view.

 

.

A couple of things about that article...it has a .eu address but comes off as US Republican spin-like; a biographer of Tony Blair....so no bias there at all...He's belittling Labour party members "too subtle" so what? they don't get it then? Also Charisma? Ed Milliband, David Cameron and George Osborne...are you having a giraffe?

And that is why he will get in..... and that is also why he is damned. The political system in this country is made up of people who's own beliefs have been compromised in the search of influence and power. He will be the hipsters/idealists choice, and the lamb to the slaughter. Regardless of his intelligence, articulated manner and standing, he will be trying to reshape the system that doesn't want him, he will be the Tory trying to organise the NHS, the liberal in Thanet, the socialist in Winchester.

 

He will open many cans of worms..... and he will clearly be delighted about that. Yet he will not be credible...... even in the eyes of his own party.

Yes.

I've got used to the idea of him winning because he won't get anywhere near 2020 - he will not be able to make enough compromises that any leader naturally has to make so will walk or be pushed. And if he refuses to compromise on anything the parliamentary party will remind him of his long history of rebellion himself and politely tell him to find f uck off back to the backbenches.

So in 2017 or so we go again at which point the political landscape may well have changed, and we get a new Labour leader primed to take the Tories on and at least get close.

Yes.

 

I've got used to the idea of him winning because he won't get anywhere near 2020 - he will not be able to make enough compromises that any leader naturally has to make so will walk or be pushed. And if he refuses to compromise on anything the parliamentary party will remind him of his long history of rebellion himself and politely tell him to find f uck off back to the backbenches.

 

So in 2017 or so we go again at which point the political landscape may well have changed, and we get a new Labour leader primed to take the Tories on and at least get close.

Either that or the current government will continue their measures of austerity to the point of the virtual removal of the welfare state, Labour will offer yet another "tory lite" alternative and get "crushed" (although obviously not a '97 style crush) again.

A couple of things about that article...it has a .eu address but comes off as US Republican spin-like; a biographer of Tony Blair....so no bias there at all...He's belittling Labour party members "too subtle" so what? they don't get it then? Also Charisma? Ed Milliband, David Cameron and George Osborne...are you having a giraffe?

It's a political opinion piece. Of course it has bias.

You do realise when you read a positive piece on Corbyn that contains bias as well? You understand that, right?

Either that or the current government will continue their measures of austerity to the point of the virtual removal of the welfare state, Labour will offer yet another "tory lite" alternative and get "crushed" (although obviously not a '97 style crush) again.

No idea what you're talking about.

In 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour won thumping majorities, far ahead of the last two Tory majorities twenty years either side. On a centre left social democratic platform.

And the things you are getting so upset about the Tories taking away now and in the next five years were in lots of cases introduced by....now let me think...they were introduced by, hang on, who was it now, it was like in the late nineties and stuff, they were introduced by....oh now who was it....

 

As for the boundary changes, you think they are designed to make it a fairer process or to enhance any other parties opportunity to win other than the Tory's?

It takes more votes on average to elect a Conservative MP than to elect a Labour MP. The system is weighted in favour of Labour.Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are over-represented when populations there are falling and parts of southern England are under-represented since its population is rising.

Or do you want constituencies left as is for ever and ever? The 2015 election was fought on different boundaries than the 1979 election , every party signs up for boundary changes , but I guess it's only the Tories that gerrymander it is it? Although at the end of the day it was in their manifesto , therefore they have a mandate to go ahead with it.

No idea what you're talking about.

 

In 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour won thumping majorities, far ahead of the last two Tory majorities twenty years either side. On a centre left social democratic platform.

 

And the things you are getting so upset about the Tories taking away now and in the next five years were in lots of cases introduced by....now let me think...they were introduced by, hang on, who was it now, it was like in the late nineties and stuff, they were introduced by....oh now who was it....

I was quoting the manner in which the clearly subjective reporter was making wild statements about how Labour were, quote "crushed" in the last election. You do come off as attempting belittlement...Nevertheless I shall soldier on and point a couple of things out: I have previously stated that I am fully aware that Labour introduced ATOS..well, new Labour, so Tory-lite...so light you might as well vote Tory...which the public did to a fair old extent (kinda why I think your idea of staying in the centre....it's centre by the way, not center as the article suggests...won't work).

So what do you suggest, do a Harriet Harman, continue as we have, throw our hands up in the air and say "oh British public, it's all our fault...please take us back as we are"...I don't think that's going to cut it any more. I think New Labour is as dead as old Labour may have been after John Smith died on the 12th of May 1994.

Also, I am aware that most articles have bias in them thank you very much.

It takes more votes on average to elect a Conservative MP than to elect a Labour MP. The system is weighted in favour of Labour.Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are over-represented when populations there are falling and parts of southern England are under-represented since its population is rising.

 

Or do you want constituencies left as is for ever and ever? The 2015 election was fought on different boundaries than the 1979 election , every party signs up for boundary changes , but I guess it's only the Tories that gerrymander it is it? Although at the end of the day it was in their manifesto , therefore they have a mandate to go ahead with it.

So why not go for full PR ? That way the votes to MPs ratio would be consistant.

Yes.

 

I've got used to the idea of him winning because he won't get anywhere near 2020 - he will not be able to make enough compromises that any leader naturally has to make so will walk or be pushed. And if he refuses to compromise on anything the parliamentary party will remind him of his long history of rebellion himself and politely tell him to find f uck off back to the backbenches.

 

So in 2017 or so we go again at which point the political landscape may well have changed, and we get a new Labour leader primed to take the Tories on and at least get close.

I am Conservative (yeah, sure you havn't forgotten....) but I see Jeremy Corbyn's potential election as labour leader as hopefully a watershed moment in British democracy. It will highlight a critical hypocrisy in frontline politics and critically the Labour party.... an organisation that carries critical political influence but would happily ignore the will of the people if the powers that be feel they know better. Something that all parties have experienced moments of and something that deeply shaped my own political view during Tony Blair's premiership.

What happens now is of massive importance to our country's future. It's rather exciting.

I am Conservative (yeah, sure you havn't forgotten....) but I see Jeremy Corbyn's potential election as labour leader as hopefully a watershed moment in British democracy. It will highlight a critical hypocrisy in frontline politics and critically the Labour party.... an organisation that carries critical political influence but would happily ignore the will of the people if the powers that be feel they know better. Something that all parties have experienced moments of and something that deeply shaped my own political view during Tony Blair's premiership.

 

What happens now is of massive importance to our country's future. It's rather exciting.

Now, I agree with that, but what is your interpretation of the "will of the people"...those who vote in the leadership battle or the UK public as a whole?

Now, I agree with that, but what is your interpretation of the "will of the people"...those who vote in the leadership battle or the UK public as a whole?

Fundamentally this. But the labour leadership contest presents the first time where anyone can sign in and sway a party membership election. £3, step right up! It has opened things up massively and all of a sudden a party establishment is being torn apart by those who they previously relied on support for. Even allowing for interlopers and invaders it's...... just astonishing. So, is the 'will of the people' for a deeply left wing Labour party..... or for it's destruction through civil war?

Labour opened itself up to the goodwill of the electorate. Ed Milliband may have done a better job of destroying Labour more then any Lord or right wing nutter could ever personally have dreamt of doing themselves. It's incredible.

I am Conservative (yeah, sure you havn't forgotten....) but I see Jeremy Corbyn's potential election as labour leader as hopefully a watershed moment in British democracy. It will highlight a critical hypocrisy in frontline politics and critically the Labour party.... an organisation that carries critical political influence but would happily ignore the will of the people if the powers that be feel they know better. Something that all parties have experienced moments of and something that deeply shaped my own political view during Tony Blair's premiership.

 

What happens now is of massive importance to our country's future. It's rather exciting.

The Conservative party is just as likely to ignore the will of the people if they think they know better, don't really understand how you can level that as a particular Labour failing when it applies to the whole political class.

(and I can't remember what persuasion you are. I'm not that much of a forum nutcase. Colin I recall one thing about you and it is the greatest protest against a football kit of all time.)

The Conservative party is just as likely to ignore the will of the people if they think they know better, don't really understand how you can level that as a particular Labour failing when it applies to the whole political class.

 

(and I can't remember what persuasion you are. I'm not that much of a forum nutcase. Colin I recall one thing about you and it is the greatest protest against a football kit of all time.)

All political parties would do that if they felt it necessary "Something that all political parties has experienced moments of," that was my point and hence why I see this as a massive deal for democracy and the UK in general.

And bless you CB Fry for the kit sarcasm. Just shows, you can fluke your way to a result..... there's hope for Liz Kendal yet!

Fundamentally this. But the labour leadership contest presents the first time where anyone can sign in and sway a party membership election. £3, step right up! It has opened things up massively and all of a sudden a party establishment is being torn apart by those who they previously relied on support for. Even allowing for interlopers and invaders it's...... just astonishing. So, is the 'will of the people' for a deeply left wing Labour party..... or for it's destruction through civil war?

See, since the days of Ramsay MacDonald, Labour have tried to not present a view of itself as anything "too far" left...i.e. electable but my view is that they've played it rather too cautious, they've sat back whilst the con-dem coalition blamed everything (literally everything) on them ad nauseum so I think a lot of people we see it as time to "punish the interlopers" because I think a lot of labour voters consider a lot of new labour to be champagne socialists, the prawn sandwich brigade of socialism as it were.

A new direction is needed for the UK Labour party, I'm not completely sold on Corbyn but out of the bunch he is the only one who comes across as honorable and with good intentions...if misguided intentions. I also think if the new labourites do indeed stage a coup, that'll be Labour's chance of election success blown maybe for 20-odd years.

See, since the days of Ramsay MacDonald, Labour have tried to not present a view of itself as anything "too far" left...i.e. electable but my view is that they've played it rather too cautious, they've sat back whilst the con-dem coalition blamed everything (literally everything) on them ad nauseum so I think a lot of people we see it as time to "punish the interlopers" because I think a lot of labour voters consider a lot of new labour to be champagne socialists, the prawn sandwich brigade of socialism as it were.

 

A new direction is needed for the UK Labour party, I'm not completely sold on Corbyn but out of the bunch he is the only one who comes across as honorable and with good intentions...if misguided intentions. I also think if the new labourites do indeed stage a coup, that'll be Labour's chance of election success blown maybe for 20-odd years.

But it was due to the Prawn sandwich brigade who had something to gain from 'New' Labour that let them in during the 90's in the first place. How can you blow a chance if you had to betray your very principles to get it in the first place?

But it was due to the Prawn sandwich brigade who had something to gain from 'New' Labour that let them in during the 90's in the first place. How can you blow a chance if you had to betray your very principles to get it in the first place?

Labour moving towards to the middle is not more betraying principles than the Tories moving towards the middle.

Labour moving towards to the middle is not more betraying principles than the Tories moving towards the middle.

A fair point, but they are in power, no chances are being blown by them. This is about Labour's own struggle for either political relevance or standing by their principles. There seems to be a fundamental clash.

The Conservative Government on the other hand compromised by going into Coalition.... then scored a majority.

All politcal parties would do that if they felt it neccesary "Something that all politcal parties has experienced moments of," that was my point and hence why I see this as a massive deal for democracy and the UK in general.

 

And bless you CB Fry for the kit sarcasm. Just shows, you can fluke your way to a result..... there's hope for Liz Kendal yet!

Corbyn's election will be a great story.

It's mainly that you can't expect the entire party membership to vote for its chief executive in this way.

Of course this is notwithstanding the idiot MPs who let him on the ballot paper, which is the fundamental flaw and led to this mess.

The Conservative process worked fine - get to two candidates that the parliamentary party are ostensibly happy to lead them - Davis or Cameron - and then let the membership vote. Either candidate was different but had enough to be a credible leader. A sensibly de-risked process.

Being a leader of an organisation is not like winning a talent or popularity contest. The new Labour party leader actually has to chair meetings, lead a cabinet, agree strategy, sit down and talk to foreign leaders, find compromise, speak to business and civic leaders, review different perspectives, make decisions and drive them through, driving discipline in his team and party to stick to his vision etc etc. All at the same time articulate a vision for the future that will keep MPs in constituencies and maybe gain new ones.

Nothing in his past suggests Corbyn is remotely capable of that. He's a stupid choice for leader, and the vote he is going to win is more of a vote on a "who reminds you the most of Tony Benn" competition.

I think I may have made my point. He's going to win, so let's buckle down for the car crash ahead.