Forum menu
You got a link to the policies you disagree with?outofbreath - Member
. Time to accept reality.
The reason for all the hilarity is that one of the big parties has publicly regected reality.
The reason for all the hilarity is that one of the big parties has publicly regected reality.
To be honest I don't see many people laughing, whatever they might have been doing 2 or 3 months ago.
But anyway, you accept that the neoliberal consensus is now completely dead ?
Personal I doubt, as the tory media will have you believe, that it'll be a list Corbyn's opionions on all matters.
So you predict he'll betray the people who voted for him.
To make a change, you have to be in power - otherwise it's just noise.
Michael Gove doesn't share your view. On the A.M. show he said there was a great deal of concern in the Conservative Party that the next election was winnable by a Corbyn-led Labour Party.
outofbreath - Member
So you predict he'll betray the people who voted for him.
I'm hoping he opens up policy to the membership and allows the grassroots to directly develop policy in a truly democratic movement.
I think it may comes down to whos still around in 4 years time
corbyn will be 70, rupert murdoch will be 89, Im not sure of a diet of Islington farmers market's finest organic produce or fresh babies keeps you alive longer
You got a link to the policies you disagree with?
His policies so far are on the BBC website.
I not going to spend my day writing out and essay on those I support. (Or don't support.)
Mr Woppit - MemberMichael Gove doesn't share your view. On the A.M. show he said there was a great deal of concern in the Conservative Party that the next election was winnable by a Corbyn-led Labour Party.
Judge them by their actions so far, it's obvious that they think he's a threat. He wsa their number one target through the election, which some tried to explain away as them wanting him to win- but now anyone can see that's not the case.
The Labour Party lost because they were perceived to have shifted too far to the left (!!!) and elsewhere we have socialist gov implementing budget surpluses in the height of a recession and or supply side policies. Neo-L is dead, long live Neo-L ( to the extent it really exists)
outofbreath - Member
You got a link to the policies you disagree with?
His policies so far are on the BBC website.I not going to spend my day writing out and essay on those I support. (Or don't support.)
Funny how when I look at the labour party site it still says a note from Ed Milliband when I look at policy.
One would surmise that new labour policy has yet to be published.
Vast majority I know deserted them because they were nothing more than tory lite.teamhurtmore - Member
The Labour Party lost because they were perceived to have shifted too far to the left
The neoliberal consensus is now completely dead, one of the main political parties no longer supports neolibralism
I don't see how you can make that claim, while at the same time stating that Corbyn can't dictate policies, and that they have to be brought about democratically through the party.
I'm not 100% sure McDonnell is a good choice as shadow chancellor, for the only reason that if he's to build bridges with the moderate PLP, a less incendiary character might have been a better choice, not that there were many options. Still I suppose it shows he plans to start as he means to go on and won't compromise himself.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/13/jeremy-corbyn-opponents-stop-sniping-gmb-union-paul-kenny ]Paul Kenny's comments about the refusenik MPs[/url] was dead on. If they really can't accept the democratic wishes of the party then they should consider their positions. They can't have it both ways.
Come on Seosamh this is STWI reckon we should maybe allow them time to develop and publish their policy before we criticize it
Vast majority I know deserted them because they were nothing more than tory lite.
The electorate will decide if they want him to lead. And, however they/we choose, we will all have to accept that's how democracy works and not spend 4 years crying and whining like spoilt children about it.
"The neoliberal consensus is now completely dead, one of the main political parties no longer supports neolibralism"I don't see how you can make that claim, while at the same time stating that Corbyn can't dictate policies, and that they have to be brought about democratically through the party.
It's pretty damn obvious that the neoliberal consensus is dead, the Labour Party has just overwhelmingly voted for the one candidate completely opposed to it to be leader.
Wake up ninfan.
In what way? Those MPs were elected by the electorate on the basis of the election manifesto and have an obligation to serve. I'd argue that's a higher obligation than to party.If they really can't accept the democratic wishes of the party then they should consider their positions
If the party wishes to move materially from that Manifesto then it is the Party's mandate from the electorate which is in question, not the position of MPs who were elected.
The Labour Party lost because they were perceived to have shifted too far to the left (!!!)
Aside from the fact that they were wiped out in Scotland by a more left wing party...
Those MPs were elected by the electorate on the basis of the election manifesto and have an obligation to serve. I'd argue that's a higher obligation than to party.
You think the people who voted for Corbyn did so on the basis of Labour's manifesto?
Regarding why labour lost it's interesting to compare the numbers from 2010 to 2015
If you look at labours result, they actually improved on their vote share by 1.5% and that's when you consider that the SNP took 3.7% directly from them, that's actually reasonably impressive considering their collapse in Scotland(which is absolutely because they are viewed as tory lite).
So labour actually took around 5% of the lidem votes that were up for grabs, the tories took about 0.8% and the result of the lib dem vote got divied up between UKIP and the Greens.
It obviously doens't work out exactly like that, as I'm generalising, a lot. But in 5 years time people will be bored with the tories and looking for an alternative, and there really hasn't been a collapse of the core labour vote in england and wales imo.
So I don't particularly see the next GE as being a direct fight against the tories, if labour can pick up votes from the SNP and more importantly reverse the UKIP rise(a protest vote imo) and take back some votes from the greens, then they are looking good the next election.
Aside from the fact that they were wiped out in Scotland by a more left wing party...
Actually imo the SNP wasn't more left-wing than Labour at the last general election, in fact the reverse is probably true.
However the important point is that the SNP was generally [i]perceived[/i] to be more left-wing than Labour, that's clearly what attracted many voters to them.
Doesn't matter what you or I think and it doesn't really matter what anyone's motivation for voting was. That's the mandate the MPs have and there were about 20 times more votes for Labour at the GE than in the party leadership election.You think the people who voted for Corbyn did so on the basis of Labour's manifesto
Right-wingers didn't say that ^^ when Tony Blair completely changed the direction of the Party.
And he had less support from the Party than Corbyn has.
In what way? Those MPs were elected by the electorate on the basis of the election manifesto and have an obligation to serve. I'd argue that's a higher obligation than to party.
Whether you like it or not, we have a party based system. If MPs can no longer support the party which they stood for, they should resign from the party and their position as MP and stand as an independent, or for another party, in a by-election. Something tells me there won't be many putting themselves forward for this.
Ernie as you know it's my belief Corbyns election will be the end of left wing Laboir politics for a generation or more, perhaps forever. Corbyn will try and move the Labour Party significantly to the left which will prove to be an electoral disaster assuming he actually makes it to an election. Labour will subsequently regroup and once again try and move back to the centre ground.
Labour under Milliband had no economic credibility and under Corbyn they'll be off the charts.
I still cannot believe they are openly singing the Red Flag, it's an open PR goal for the Tories to exploit. Too easy to portray this for what it is, Trotskiests and strikes disrupting people's lives.
We know what, Corbyn stands for on Trident, he against it in theory. However in practice he seems. Dry reluctant to say so now he's the leader. Just like he won't say how many refugees the UK should take. Being in a protest political is very different to be the leader.
True. But if the party changes so that it ceases to be or offer what it presented to the electorate, then by your logic it should also resign and seek a new mandate.If MPs can no longer support the party which they stood for, they should resign from the party
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for either - just responding to a comment that MPs should consider their position. I don't think they have to until it comes to GE 2020 candidate selection and whether or not the proposition from the party at that point is one they can support.
I still cannot believe they are openly singing the Red Flag, it's an open PR goal for the Tories to exploit. Too easy to portray this for what it is, Trotskiests and strikes disrupting people's lives.
Aren't strikes now all but illegal under the Tories new proposals?
I do agree with you that having Billy Bragg singing the Red Flag is just an open invitation for the right wing press to declare war on you. But they were always going to do that anyway.
oldbloke - Member
If MPs can no longer support the party which they stood for, they should resign from the party
True. But if the party changes so that it ceases to be or offer what it presented to the electorate, then by your logic it should also resign and seek a new mandate.
But, they can only get a mandate from a general election and that's up to the tories to call.
[quote=seosamh77 said]
But, they can only get a mandate from a general election and that's up to the tories to call.
Not any longer, fixed term parliament act and all that.
[quote=dazh said]
Whether you like it or not, we have a party based system. If MPs can no longer support the party which they stood for, they should resign from the party and their position as MP and stand as an independent, or for another party, in a by-election. Something tells me there won't be many putting themselves forward for this.
Should Corbyn have done this during the Blair/Brown/Milliband years ?
Never knew about that, cheers.allthepies - Member
Not any longer, fixed term parliament act and all that.
Should Corbyn have done this during the Blair/Brown/Milliband years ?
Corbyn had the support of the labour membership, then as he does now. Many of those now [s]resigning[/s] not being invited to be part of the shadow cabinet and making a public show of it, will find they do not.
@ernie its support from the electorate you need not the party and that where Corbyn is going to come badly unstuck
I posted back a while ago Corbyn could be a godsend for the Lib Dems allowing them space in the middle ground. However increasingly I think the Tories will is in policies of the centre, they have been relentlessly pushing the message that they are the party or working people. They will emphasise this and differentiate themselves from Labour who they will portray as the party of people that don't work or don't want to work (which is how many people see trade Unionists). It will be powerful and effective IMO
I think the Tories will is in policies of the centre, they have been relentlessly pushing the message that they are the party or working people
They can say it as much as they like, today's debate shows them up as liars who despise working people.
<bookmarks thread for future reference to see who knows what they're talking about>
Because it was quite funny re-reading the post 2010 election threads about how the ConDems wouldn't see out the term, etc.
Jamby you are underestimating how disenfranchised the majority are with the westminster bubble, [u]IF[/u] Corbyn can prove himself to be an alternative to that then he could do very well, In a similar way that UKIP came from nowhere
Tory confusion over Europe and a major clash of egos in the Borris vs Gideon battle could well easily undo their sham attempt at positioning themselves as the workers party
Union membership in the UK makes up ~20% of the overall workforce.
I think the Tories will is in policies of the centre, they have been relentlessly pushing the message that they are the party or working people
And I can say I'm the Queen of Denmark as many times as I like too.
A good few places spring readily to mind (probably not places you're too familiar with Jammers) where a Tory standing up and declaring himself to be the natural representative and champion of working people would be well advised to have a number of armed bodyguards around him when he did, or be able to run really, really fast - Seb Coe perhaps?
Indeed. Still doesn't mean individual MPs need to resign because their party has changed direction since they got their mandate.But, they can only get a mandate from a general election and that's up to the tories to call
Union membership in the UK makes up ~20% of the overall workforce.
So the Tories are persecuting a minority. Demanding a greater mandate for withdrawing their labour than the tories have to actually run the country. Demanding anyone involved in a protest over working rights wears a public symbol of identification and registers with the police.
With policies like these the tory collapse begins today.
you are underestimating how disenfranchised the [b]majority[/b] are with the westminster bubble,
Are they really where are the numbers to back that up?
Some are clearly disenfranchised but not the majority, the recent election had 66% turn out vs a historical average of ~74%. So around 8% are disenfranchised on my reckoning.
Should Corbyn have done this during the Blair/Brown/Milliband years ?
Maybe. But an important difference is that he had the overwhelming support of his own constituency party and as already noted a significant proportion of the wider party membership. Add to that the fact that despite his rebellion on various individual issues he always accepted the existing leadership and didn't attempt to directly destabilise it (AFAIK). In the end it comes down to the local constituency party. If the MPs have their support then fine, if not they should think about their position if they can't support the wishes of the party.
Being in a protest political is very different to be the leader.
What about him makes you think he's so stupid as to have not realised this? I think he is a lot cleverer than you give him.credit for and a lot more experienced in politics than all of us put together.
John McDonnell is the new shadow chancellor.
They haven't a chance. Venezuela, anyone?
since you're talking averages you probably need to put a +/- on to that, so something like 5-11% is probably more accurate.dragon - Member
you are underestimating how disenfranchised the majority are with the westminster bubble,
Are they really where are the numbers to back that up?Some are clearly disenfranchised but not the majority, the recent election had 66% turn out vs a historical average of ~74%. So around 8% are disenfranchised on my reckoning.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/man-who-just-got-elected-definitely-unelectable-20150914101940 ]Unelectable.[/url]
so something like 5-11% is probably more accurate.
That's fair enough I'd say. A better analysis of those people who stopped voting would be interesting, who are they, what do they think, what side of the spectrum do they lean etc.
They will emphasise this and differentiate themselves from Labour who they will portray as the party of people that don't work or don't want to work (which is how many people see trade Unionists). It will be powerful and effective IMO
There a lot of DM reader types who will swallow any old BS but hopefully he can give message that will enable people to see through the Tory lie that they are there for the little people
Some are clearly disenfranchised but not the majority, the recent election had 66% turn out vs a historical average of ~74%. So around 8% are disenfranchised on my reckoning.
8 % are recently disenfranchised 44% are disenfranchised.
8 % are recently disenfranchised 44% are disenfranchised.
How did you come you with that 44% stat?
Since WW2 highest turnout was 83.9% in 1950 and lowest 59.4% in 2001.
How did you come you with that 44% stat?
80% of all stats are made up, the other 30% are maths fails?
Mr Woppit - MemberJohn McDonnell is the new shadow chancellor.
They haven't a chance. Venezuela, anyone?
They haven't a chance? Venezuela anyone?
You have just given an example of a country where the Left have repeatedly won elections one after the other for many years.
Haven't a chance?
Do you think before you post?
Venezuelan economy is in crisis and has been for some time.You have just given an example of a country where the Left have repeatedly won elections one after the other for many years
I thought we were talking about whether Labour stood "a chance"?
That's what I took "they" as meaning.
Second time in a few days a politician has accedentally been caught on mic, this time Labour and about Anglea Eagles's role
[i]A member of his (Corbyn's) team was overhead by Sky News saying they should give her the role because they were taking a “fair amount of shit out there about women.[/i]
Ernie - Woppit's comment seemed (to me) more related to the economic outcome were they to be elected, rather than the possibility of election.
A member of his (Corbyn's) team was overhead by Sky News saying they should give her the role because they were taking a “fair amount of shit out there about women.
Seems a very reasonable comment.
Is the problem because they used the word "shit" ?
half the shadow cabinet roles going to women, he must be really worried about taking shit!
or hes just doing what he said he'd do....
accedentally been caught on mic
nobody gets "accidentally" caught on mike by Sky News - they don't forget and leave radio mikes on, or accidentally wave sensitive boom mikes near private conversations. They have an agenda, and smearing Corbyn will be a big part of their lives for the next few years. All in the name of democracy, you understand...
It wasn't caught on mic it was overheard, full story is [url= http://news.sky.com/story/1552307/corbyns-cabinet-chaos-the-inside-story ]here[/url]
I'm still none the wiser what the problem.
Is the problem that someone, no one is quite certain who, expressed the opinion that Angela Eagle should be made shadow first minister of state because more women were needed in important posts?
Why would that be a problem? Angela Eagle is now actually shadow first minister of state.
uses the same bar ends as me so he gets my vote
[img] 
[/img]
It might be considered by some to be a problem if Ms Eagle only got the job to satisfy gender bias concerns rather than because she was sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to carry the portfolio.
We'll never know and as we'll be able to form our own opinion on her capability relatively soon, it matters little.
If this article is correct, the Tories consider Corbyn an open goal so their strategy is to tar Labour itself with the brush of Corbyn's policy so Corbyn can't hand over to a moderate leaving an electable party.
Personally I think that's a far better strategy than personally attacking Corbyn alone.
It suggests that the Tories think there's a real chance Corbyn won't make it to 2020 as leader.
50/50 gender split, tokenism or equality?
does seem like murdoch is out for him now though, the question is will jeremy outlast rupert?
........ if Ms Eagle only got the job to satisfy gender bias concerns rather than because she was sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to carry the portfolio.
That suggestion is an unjustified slur on Angela Eagle, she is an extremely capable politician, something which Corbyn's team will fully recognise.
I voted for Angela Eagle for the post of Deputy Leader of the Party, I was gutted when Tom Watson, who I consider a lightweight compared to her, won the Deputy Leader election - it's my only disappointment in the last few days.
Still as shadow first minister of state Angela Eagle will be able to stand in for Corbyn in PMQs, so that's quite a consolation.
Overheard is a bit weak from a Sky hack - no evidence it really happened, could be made up. The right wing press would never do that though would they...
Man v Women. Definitely a weakness that the front bench is male dominTed given Corbyn made a point of saying cabinet would be 50/50. Its a smLl detail though in relation to everything else
Eagle is/was better qualified for Shadow Chanceller. (rel speaking) but nailed by establishment credentials of PPE at Oxford.!! No women in the key positions. Equality rhetoric mainly BS - like the Tories jobs for your mates. So much for a fresh new approach. A lot of £3 investors will be disappointed again!! Plus ca change.:..
Definitely a weakness that the front bench is male dominTed given Corbyn made a point of saying cabinet would be 50/50
There are 16 women in the shadow cabinet and 15 men, unless he appointed a ?hermaphrodite he couldn't make it 50/50.
This is the first time ever that there are more women than men in a shadow cabinet.
teamhurtmore - MemberEagle is/was better qualified for Shadow Chanceller. (rel speaking) but nailed by establishment credentials of PPE at Oxford.!!
What nonsense. Corbyn appointed John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor and not Angela Eagle because John McDonnell is much closer to him politically and economically than Angela Eagle.
Corbyn was overwhelmingly elected Leader of the Labour Party - he got 50% more votes than all the other candidates put together, in part because of his strong anti-austerity views and commitment to the nationalisation of the railways and utilities.
It was therefore obvious that he should appoint someone who has also for many years closely shared those views and commitments. Not to do so would have betrayed the "£3 investors" which you feign concern for.
He polishes up quite well really;
[img] 
[/img]
@wasawas - is that a sell out, suit and tie 😉 Personally I'm happy he has shown Parliament and the front bench the respect it deserves, credit where credit is due
That's quite a photo
Ernie. Your comments may be true. But to suggest that mine are nonsense you would have to address what I said. Eagle is better qualified for the role.
I appreciate that's not your normal game though. Plus ca change in more ways than one. How about elected overwhelmingly on the basis of Trident, NATO and EU?
Sitting in GVA now. The Europeans are gobsmacked!!!
Should be interesting to see old skool leftie heavy weights vs the Tories. 😛
Nice to see Diane back on the front bench, where she belongs
binners - MemberNice to see Diane back on the front bench, where she belongs
I always thought that she was a dim-witted racist, is this not the case?
That's the mandate the MPs have and there were about 20 times more votes for Labour at the GE than in the party leadership election.
An MP's mandate comes from the constituents who voted for them. That is the electoral system we have.
That's quite a photo
Sure is - I bet the producers of Newzoids and HIGNFY were worried about material after Milibands departure. This should keep them going for a while!
Sitting in GVA now. The Europeans are gobsmacked!!!
There's been a resurgence of the left in Greece, Spain and Italy. France has a socialist president. Corbyn's election would seem to be part of a wider European trend.
Which was exactly the point being made, as opposed to the suggestion those disagreeing with the leader should consider their position.An MP's mandate comes from the constituents who voted for them. That is the electoral system we have.