Forum menu
People switching from Labour to UKIP clearly never understood what the Labour party represents
Not true original working class trade union Labour was anti EU and wasn't very supportive of immigration. So people with those values will see UKIP as a natural move.
Labour is really 2 parties in one, the working class of the North and Wales and then the metropolitan studenty liberal left lot. Speaking in generals they maybe aligned on the NHS but they aren't on the EU.
I don't suppose there was a regional breakdown of voting in the Labour Leadership election? I'm wondering who the northern, anti-EU candidate was.
Corbyn and McDonnell are anti EU they just won't fully admit it.
The EU stance of McDonnel and Corbyn is a really special and unique kind of bonkers.
They're not bothered about access to the single market (I mean, why would you be?), in fact they're hostile to it, but they then absolutely insist on unlimited freedom of movement.
Finger on the pulse of the mood of the country there chaps
Finger on the pulse of the mood of the country there chaps
Is that how policies should be decided? By that token maybe the Labour Party should stake out a position as the capital punishment party. Guaranteed vote winner.
But that's politics, you either lead public opinion or you follow it - but there is nothing the voters dislike more than politicians sitting on the bloody fence
@binners is spot on. Corbyn and McDonnell's stance makes absolutely no sense. They have always wanted out of the EU (with its anti state support rules) but they have painted themselves into a corner and regard "freedom of movement" as a badge of their anti-racism stance. It's non-sensical. They'd have more credibility if they embraced a global immigration policy with equal access rights for all - clearly that can't be complete freedom of movement so they get stucknas there has to be a limit or a visa system.
As above a by-election in Sellafield with a narrow majority over the Tories and which voted Leave is a perfect storm for them.
Is that how policies should be decided? By that token maybe the Labour Party should stake out a position as the capital punishment party. Guaranteed vote winner.
No. But the way that democracy works is that you map out a series of policies that will appeal to enough people to get you elected. What Laurel and Hardy have done is looked at the EU issue - the one through which everything else is presently judged - and cunningly concocted a policy that provides the worst of both worlds, and will appeal to precisely no-one. On account of it being completely bonkers!
Its quite an achievement. Never underestimate how truly unhinged the [s]Peoples Front of Judea[/s] present labour leadership actually is
enough people to get you elected.
Don't be silly, Binners. Jeremy has a mandate, and is a conviction politician. That's far more important than actually ever being in government and being able to implement policies.
Far better to hold some placards and complain about lot.
Very true. You may lead the party to electoral armageddon by utterly rejecting the concerns of your core (ex)vote, but you can hold your head up high at the branch meeting of the Friends of Palestinian, one-armed, organic lesbian society, and all sing the red flag ... comrade
And thats what matters.
Still need to find myself a bookie who'll take my bet on Labour retaining less than 100 seats at the next election. At this rate its a dead cert!
Peoples Front of Judea
Do us a favour, binners, and leave that very old and unfunny joke behind in 2016. Make it your new year resolution to find something new and amusing to say.
I'd that the age of the joke is relevant here. When the Pythons parodied the left back then, it was because of the long history of left wing parties dividing like bacteria in a petri dish. It's still funny because it's still the same situation!
Oh come on. They really do scream out for the glaringly obvious comparison to be made though.
As a lifelong labour voter I think it's an absolute tragedy what these muppets are doing - marching off into a self-indulgent electoral wasteland, at a point where the Labour Party has never been more needed - and I've got to the point where I have to laugh unless I'd cry.
Whether you like it or not, this is about as competent and electable as Corbyn and chums look at the moment. And theyre becoming more Python-esque by the week...
[img] 
[/img]
It was mildly amusing, in a predictable way, the first time you said it. Endless repetition doesn't make it funnier. Or your added commentary more incisive.
I do apologise. All hail Reg eh?
Maybe we could all pay 10p and vote on whether the comparison is funny or not ?
Endless repetition doesn't make it funnier.
Are you talking about the life of Brian reference, or the direction of the Labour Party in general there? 😀
When you get to the point of asking people not to take the piss out of your chosen messiah, it is time to go looking for a new one.
He's not the Messiah.....
He's a very naughty boy!
An old joke thats been endlessly repeated, and really isn't funny any more? It's almost like a metaphor....
😆
When you get to the point of asking people not to take the piss out of your chosen messiah, it is time to go looking for a new one.
I think CFH has it, there is no such thing as a new Messiah. There can be only one ? If he didn't cut it he's not the Messiah.
When you get to the point of asking people not to take the piss out of your chosen messiah, it is time to go looking for a new one.
I'm not doing that at all - just expressing the view that endless repetition of old Monty Python sketches is not funny any more, and hasn't been for about twenty years. Corbyn offers great scope for piss-taking - surely you can come up with something a bit less boring?
[img] 
[/img]
We not doing ironing today then? The point i''m making, that shouldn't really need explaining, is that Corbyn/the Messiah has, in the space of a mere twelve months, managed to perfectly replicate the exact same conditions within the Labour Party that John Cleese and the rest of the Pythons saw as so ripe for mockery at the end of the 70's. with the same electoral results to follow shortly. Actually, it'll be far worse, because as you've pointed out, it's an old joke that didn't need repeating
Yes. You said that. Over and over and over and over again. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. But you're sure as hell boring.
Corbyn/the Messiah has, in the space of a mere twelve months, managed to perfectly replicate the exact same conditions within the Labour Party.
Binners nothing will change while this simplistic and frankly self-serving rationale exists. It's clearly not all Corbyn's fault. It's a complex mix of the legacy of new labour, external economic and political forces, and the failure of successive labour leaders (including Corbyn) to come up with a strategy to transform the party into something relevant in the 21st century. Instead of shouting 'it's all his fault', Corbyn's critics could do worse than offer a positive alternative beyond the old 1997 cliches. I've yet to see or hear anything that suggests they have a clue as to what that is.
to come up with a strategy to transform the party into something relevant in the 21st century. Instead of shouting 'it's all his fault', Corbyn's critics could do worse than offer a positive alternative beyond the old 1997 cliches.
What's the point, the membership wants him as leader, no much going to change that. One of the observations though for left sided parties across the world is more how they are more of a loose coalition of different groups. Managing them is like herding cats, after 18 years in the wilderness was simple for Blair, show a way to power. Once in they was not as much to complain about JC could vote against the government as much as he liked as there was a majority etc. They have not been starved enough to decide to play nicely together yet.
It's not boring at all. Not in the slightest. As for repetition Binners must make make the comparison once every few weeks ? As someone who gave credibility to internationally recognised terorrist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah by describing them as friends and inviting them to Westminster drawing a parallel to a fictional Middle Eastern anti-government group seems highly relevant to me. Or maybe we shoud just call Corbyn's Labour Party the London branch of Sinn Fein ?
It's not boring at all. Not in the slightest. As for repetition Binners must make make the comparison once every few weeks ? As someone who gave credibility to internationally recognised terorrist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah by describing them as friends and inviting them to Westminster drawing a parallel to a fictional Middle Eastern anti-government group seems highly relevant to me. Or maybe we shoud just call Corbyn's Labour Party the London branch of Sinn Fein ?
Quoting for prosperity.
As someone who gave credibility to internationally recognised terorrist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.............
What's the point, the membership wants him as leader, no much going to change that.
I've always seen Corbyn as a symptom rather than the cause of the malaise in the party. That malaise is evidenced perfectly by the inability of Corbyn's opponents to find a credible candidate to put up against him. If Owen Smith and Angela Eagle were the best they could find, then it's plainly ridiculous to suggest that all the party's problems are the fault of Corbyn. For all his faults, Corbyn offered an alternative to the out-dated and failing new labour status quo which actually addressed member's concerns. His opponents need to do the same. If they do, I'm pretty sure they won't need to beat him, he'll step aside of his own accord long before 2020.
Isn't the problem now the 'membership' and the endlessly repeated 'mandate' they provide for Jezza?
Basically a ridiculously ill-conceived change to the electoral rules allowed the party to be rapidly colonised by interlopers, who are simply not representative of the broader labour movement,and certainly not of the electorate. Hence the present catastrophic polling, which gets worse by the week?
The tail is now well and truly wagging the dog, and the present rules mean there is no hope of change, even when (not if) the Labour Party is completely wiped out as a political force at the next election.
I expect that Mr Reed won't be the last to tire of banging their heads against a barking mad lefty wall, and simply leave to find something less hopeless to do
Mandate my Ass...
Surely relying on the argument that the leadership of the Labour Party is an issue for the membership alone is to ignore Clause i of the party constitution.
(See also clause V regards formulation of policy)
Why all this "wiped out at the next election" stuff, there is plenty of time for the Tories to mess up particularly on Brexit and mess up the economy. If Corbyn can capture the public's disatisfaction with tax avoidance, high pay for the few and jobs for ordinary working people in the north (UKIP voters?). He may start to bring things round, maybe even try for a bit of populism.
Well he's had all those yawning open goals in front of him for the past 12 months. I see no signs that he's ready to stop spooning it into row Z every time, just yet.
The bottom line is that he's just an inept and totally ineffective politician. And the public can see that. Hence all those anonymous decades on the back benches.,There is absolutely no chance of coming back from poll ratings as awful as his.
Who do you think should replace him?
[i]The immigration issue is just the most visible way in which the now totally London-centric Labour Party has totally lost touch with the concerns of its core northern voters in their post-industrial (former) heartlands, in favour of the issues that tend to trouble the metropolitan contributors to the Guardian letters page.
It's been going on for a lot longer than Corbyn, but he, and the likes of Dianne Abbot, are the living embodiment of this disconnection. A lot of the time it feels like they're telling working class voters off, or pitying the poor thickos, for not sharing they're more enlightened cosmopolitan opinions. A real vote winner!
[/i]
Yes, but the real problem is that without the welfare state and the public sector people would've just left these places and gone to the ones with jobs, as people did a century ago - and how they do it in places with no/little safety net. You've only to look at the depopulation in places like Detroit (well documented) to see what can happen. 1.8m to 700k in 60 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Detroit
Consequently of course they feel let down by places like London, but then London/SE is full of people who use to live in the north (I went down first 1986-1988 and then again 1998-2012. So stop moaning and do something (positive) about it.
Basically a ridiculously ill-conceived change to the electoral rules allowed the party to be rapidly colonised by interlopers
And there is one of the answers to whether 'it's all Corbyn's fault'. The change to the membership rules was brought in by blairites to water down the union influence in the wake of David M being beaten by his brother with the union block vote. Aside from that though, I just don't see that it's a weakness. Time will tell, and as THM says the labour party is as good at losing members as gaining them. But assuming these new members are for real then that's a lot of new blood, new ideas and crucially new energy that could be effectively harnessed to win an election. Dismissing them all as student trots is just daft. Until MPs and the 'grandees' who think they own the party accept this, nothing will change Corbyn or not.
The leadership voting debacle was Ed's gift, no ?
The leadership voting debacle was Ed's gift, no ?
Indeed. Thing is Ed didn't turn out to be the union puppet Len McCluskey et al thought he would be and like many labour leaders before him, only paid lip service to them in favour of electoral expediency. The result being that he ceded to blairite MPs on reform of leadership election procedure to reduce the influence of the union block vote. Maybe it was a reaction to the tory press calling him Red Ed? He wouldn't be the first labour leader to try and prove his rightwing credentials in the face of Daily Heil, Torygraph and The Scum influence.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/labour-plays-to-jeremy-corbyns-radicalism-in-video-message-for-2017 ]The horses are already gone I think.[/url]
If the labour party really want to jump on the populist bandwagon, there's really only one person to do it...
If the labour party really want to jump on the populist bandwagon,
They need to, they won't win by politely pointing out the errors in the populist ways. They need to adopt a similar style (with less lies). Ed Balls is exactly the sort of person they need as their front man (likeable, sounds honest etc,.).
The front man is all that matters now, the policies are hidden away in the background and most people don't even seem to care about them. Do you think the Labour voters who swing to UKIP have really read and understood the UKIP policies and how most of them would be detrimental to them...
The front man is all that matters now,
Is a point well made. A good deal of the electorate agree with Corbyn's stance on many things, but he can't personally connect with those same voters.
The front man is all that matters now
That's handy for Labour then as they don't really have a shadow cabinet as most won't serve in it 🙂
Tom Watson, decent guy potential leader doing his best to hold things together
John McDonnell, IRA sympathiser and self proclaimed Marxist and anti-Capitalist and he's the shadow chancellor ffs
Diane Abbott, personification of the Islington dinner party elite
Corbyn's lost of faults has been discussed here at length
It doesn't matter who leads the Labour Party. If they stick to being the Tory-lite party to satisfy the UK media then it just allows the Tories to move further right. If they present any other option then the media will alternately ignore/eviscerate the new leader as they have with Corbyn.
self proclaimed Marxist and anti-Capitalist and he's the shadow chancellor ffs
Those things are not necessarily mutually exclusive, Marxism is just another economic theory.
Marxism is just another economic theory
And a much fairer one than the mixes of capitalist rubbish we seem to live with.
Indeed, more people would be better off, but we seem to have collectively shrugged our shoulders in order to buy more stuff.
Corbyn's lost of faults has been discussed here at length
That doesn't seem to stop you repeating them over and over and over and over and...
on credit.Indeed, more people would be better off, but we seem to have collectively shrugged our shoulders in order to buy more stuff.
Do you think the Labour voters who swing to UKIP have really read and understood the UKIP policies and how most of them would be detrimental to them...
*Adopts coloquial estuary Warren Mitchell accent*
"But Ukip will keep the cooooons owt, wonitt?"
That was me taking the piss BTW, my best mates actually a white middle aged IT professional
Marxism is just another economic theory
And a much fairer one than the mixes of capitalist rubbish we seem to live with.
For consumerism to work well, you actually need a certain something, i cant quite place my finger on what i might be?
Oh, thats it, consumers!
Not 6 years of austerity lead policy and wage surpression whittling away at disposable income or even full scale total removal of income for those hardest hit.
And a much fairer one than the mixes of capitalist rubbish we seem to live with.
Indeed, and every time it's been tried it seems to work out so well for the masses...
And a much fairer one than the mixes of capitalist rubbish we seem to live with.
Please give examples of these utopia's
Please give examples of these utopia's
well, Socialism has pretty much always been tried in third world countries. And pretty much always with the most powerful country in the world invading, assassinating, restricting, fomenting coups and scalping it's children.
Alternatively can you say that capitalism "works"? A system in place in most "developed" countries, yet we have regular crises, millions go hungry, loads are without healthcare throughout the world, without the bare necessities even in the best of times. And how is even this level of failure sustained during the best of times? Mass slave labour, sweatshop labour, child labour; the subjugation of most of the world's people to sustain the lifestyles of the few.
The New Year statement is not quite something
Remarkably underwhelming
well, Socialism has pretty much always been tried in third world countries. And pretty much always with the most powerful country in the world invading, assassinating, restricting, fomenting coups and scalping it's children.
So any examples of the utopia's lauded? Or is it that there are none? Or are you blaming everyone else for the model never working?
I would suggest it works better than the examples you have yet to quote of successful Marxist economiesAlternatively can you say that capitalism "works"?
Incase you missed it Big n daft..
well, Socialism has pretty much always been tried in third world countries. And pretty much always with the most powerful country in the world invading, assassinating, restricting, fomenting coups and scalping it's children.
edited for brainfart moment and no time to fact check
The list of socialist utopia's is blank. McDonnell etc want to take the wealth created by capitalism and share it out amongst those who do not believe in it. Not something anyone in the middle class is going to vote for. Not something that people with wealth or companies are going to allow themselves to be subject to. The anti-Capitalist tag will see Labour truely crushed at the next election, personally I don't see how they can distance themselves from it given the personalities and track record.
High punative taxes in France have been a disaster with wealth simply leaving the country and the most impacted individuals have been farmers whose theoretical wealth is in their land (most definitely not in their pockets) and have been trapped by the wealth tax.
[img] 
[/img]
Venezuela was doing quite fine
Can you provide dates when it was "fine" in Venezuela so I can update the extensive list of other utopia's
So any examples of the utopia's lauded?
B&D, have a look at the causes and outcome of the '73 coup in Chile, fomented by the US who feared "a well-functioning socialist experiment" on the region and exerted diplomatic, economic, and covert pressure upon Chile's elected socialist government.
Chile wasn't ever going to be allowed to be socialist. "Utopian" or otherwise TBH. It was never in the interests of the US to allow the people of south america to see if socialism works.
And it's interesting, don't you think, that while the supporters of Capitalism allow it to have failures, and even admit that it's not perfect, somehow Marxism or Socialism has to be Utopian, a state that no political system could achieve TBH, but strange how the Capitalist system has to crush it ruthlessly whenever and wherever it appears.
Please give examples of these utopia's
Who said it would be utopia? It would be fairer and better on average and closer to a utopia than any consumerist capitalist system where few people are actually happy (even those with the money)
It would be fairer and better on average
Hurrah, everyone join the queue - free jar of Spreewald gherkins included with every Trabant sold.
Nicaragua under the Sandinista did pretty well.
The Soviet union was never socialist. It was totalitarian
The UK is a mixed economy - neither capitalist nor socialist nor any other -ist.
kerley - i am glad to report that i met plenty of people who appeared to be really quite happy today
The list of socialist utopia's is blank
It's about the same length as the list of capitalist utopias you pillock!
Double post, for this capitalist land of plenty
Getting back to Jezza, he actually came out with something half-decent the other day, comparing The Maybot with Henry the eighth, with her desire to use archaic royal perogatives to drive through Brexit legislation.
If he carries on that theme he'll be on to something. I bet she'all absolutely hate that! Pity he did it when no-one is listening as it's between Christmas and new year and nobody is watching the news as they're all full of mince pies.
So that potentially effective plan of attack will no doubt be immediately jettisoned in favour of banging on about unilateral nuclear disarmament, or something.
We've established that he's politically clueless, but FFS who on earth is in charge of the labour press office?!!
Certainly not...
[img] 
[/img]
I expect the big relaunch will be handled in the same utterly clueless manner
But his comments (as reported) on the EU we're simply vacuous - at least that is the antithesis of spin, but equally useless!
The Soviet union was never socialist. It was totalitarian
What a pointless attempt at mixed metaphors
What you appear to be [i]trying[/i] to say is that the Soviet Union was a series of totalitarian socialist states rather than liberal & democratic socialist states
The question that opens is whether it is truly possible to be both socialist and a liberal democracy, or whether the principles of socialism and collectivism are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and individual freedom. All we know is that so far nobody appears to have succeeded in maintaining one for more than a few fleeting moments, perhaps primarily because their very existence is tied to the instability of permanent revolution.
It's about the same length as the list of capitalist utopias you pillock!
Nobody said there are capitalist utopia's, the challenge is for people to name Marxist economies that were measurably more utopian than the numerous capitalist economies around the world.
At the moment the list comprises of Venezuela during an undefined period and a whistful glimmer in Chile during the 70's. Happy to take more suggestions.
"or whether the principles of socialism and collectivism are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and individual freedom"
It certainly is at the start because initially the richer 50pc of the population all have to move abroad to save their cash from being reallocated to the less rich 50pc.
So straight away you have to build a Trump-esque wall to keep people in.
Hence Corbyn's lifelong anti EU stance. Socialism doesn't work with freedom of movement.
Sorry Binners but the Henry the eighth bubble has already burst
So straight away you have to build a Trump-esque wall to keep people in.
Stop it, the anti-fascist protective wall was built purely to stand up to western military adventurism, and you know it.
Stop it, the anti-fascist protective wall was built purely to stand up to western military adventurism, and you know it.
No it wasn't, it was to stop the hordes of economic migrants pouring over the border threatening the purity of the proletarian revolution
[i]"No one should think we are in love with the Wall; that is by no means the case… The anti-fascist protective rampart was necessary to stand up to the military adventurers," [/i]
Walter Ulbricht (East German head of state) 8th Sept 1962 speech to German Workers Conference
Can you provide dates when it was "fine" in Venezuela so I can update the extensive list of other utopia's
Brilliant. Could be the best STW laugh of 2016 🙂
Venezula, Nigaragua, Cuba ... yup all election winning comparisons come 2020. Can't wait. I appreciate those on the Corbyn side of the argument don't want to listen to me but those of us on the other side can't think of a bigger positive for us come 2020 than JC and his legacy. Even if he's gone by then the residual hint of Momentum (ie Militant Tendancy) around Labour will be enough. The Tories are not attacking Labour as they don't want to see a change.
Personally I see little difference between Corbyn and Stalin's ideas of Socialist democracy. Momentum's agenda is to deselect, democratically of course at a few £ a vote, those who don't agree. Sound familiar ? A purge is a purge.