Forum menu
[quote=ernie_lynch ]The remaining 27 defectors were talentless and unnotable MPs who probably felt that it was better to jump ship before being pushed. Only one had the guts to resign his seat and force a byelection - he lost. All the others remained SDP MPs despite being elected as Labour candidates, and they almost all lost their seats in the subsequent 1983 general election, while simultaneously splitting the Labour vote. It seems that not being left-wing didn't help them much.
Out of the famous Gang of Four who formed the SDP 2 lost their seat at the 1983 general election and a third one, Roy Jenkins, lost his seat 4 years later, to of all people, George Galloway - that famous moderate.
Hmm, so are legalisation of abortion, abolition of capital punishment and legalisation of homosexuality unnotable?
Meanwhile one of those MPs won his seat in a by-election standing as an SDP candidate, having never held that seat as a Labour MP.
Hmm, so are legalisation of abortion, abolition of capital punishment and legalisation of homosexuality unnotable?
Harold Wilson wasn't one of the defectors, what's your point caller?
Other than desperately trying to clutch onto straws of course.
EDIT : Actually Harold Wilson was scathing in his criticism of the Labour defectors. He claimed that he regarded David Owen as having little talent and had thought that it had been a mistake on the part of Jim Callaghan to make him Foreign Secretary.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]EDIT : Actually Harold Wilson was scathing in his criticism of the Labour defectors.
Including those he promoted to high office in his government? Did he claim that they had little talent and that it was a mistake to make them cabinet minister?
I note that Wilson isn't generally considered directly responsible for those reforms I mentioned either.
Did he claim that they had little talent and that it was a mistake to make them cabinet minister?
As far as I am aware Harold Wilson did not make any of the 28 Labour MPs who defected to the SDP cabinet ministers, I don't know what you're talking about.
EDIT : I'm sorry that should say 27 Labour MPs who defected to the SDP. I have already acknowledged that David Owen was only one with any sort of vague talent. My comment was aimed at, quote : [i]"The remaining 27 defectors were talentless and unnotable MPs"[/i]
The point you are missing, Aracer, is that Roy Jenkins wasn't an MP and he had just returned from the European Commission.
No Roy Jenkins wasn't one of the 28 Labour MPs who defected, and he certainly wasn't talentless. He was a far more credible politician than David Owen and it was only him agreeing to join them that gave the SDP any sort of credibility imo, the respect he commanded and his status was fully exploited by David Owen.
But the difference between Roy Jenkins and David Owen went beyond that of credibility and talent. Roy Jenkins while undoubtedly on the right of the Labour Party was actually a keynesian social democrat, unlike David Owen who despite using the social democratic label was much more of a thatcherite monetarist.
The two didn't have that much in common beyond opposition to the left in the Labour Party. They eventually parted company.
imo.
[quote=mefty ]The point you are missing, Aracer, is that Roy Jenkins wasn't an MP and he had just returned from the European Commission.
Well he was an MP in 1983, which I thought was our data point, but my apologies for missing that ernie wasn't referring to him as one of the defectors, despite him joining the SDP from the Labour party. I was confused by your mention of him (which I quoted deliberately), and assumed you would have realised who I meant immediately - clearly I confused you! I'm pleased to see we agree that he wasn't talentless.
er, I'm not sure this has anything at all to do with Corbyn any more though (but I suppose I could throw in that Roy Jenkins was probably somewhat to the left of the modern Labour party)
Anyway, getting back to leadership thing...
There's a debate on 5live this morning from 0830 - 1000 if anybody's still up for mind-changing?
No, I'm not- my mind has already been changed by the vicious campaign by the press against a bloke with values from Islington...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/25/labour-race-corbyn-wins-britain-out-of-europe
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85d51748-4a41-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#axzz3joFn7SZX
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/600426/Labour-leadership-Jeremy-Corbyn-90000-unions
🙄
That's from just page 1 of the news on Corbyn on Google. Search for Andy Burnham and there is no negative news.
Search for Yvette Cooper and again, no negative news (unless you count the one policy that comes up- "Yvette will axe the ban on clapping in the house of commons"- which is very important...). I don't think I remember the press turning on a favourite so much- I hope Corbyn's supporters aren't fooled by it.
I do rather hope Corbyn wins, he seems to have some integrity compared to most politicans, unfortunately his policies are at the very least divisive and populist nonsense at worst although I do think he believes in what he is preaching. Shame we don't have any conviction politicans to the right.
Might be worth book marking this thread for posterity to see if the doom sayers were right (although I would suspect it will still be all the fault of the press etc. if he leads Labour to defeat, it's always somebody elses fault with tne left).
Yeah it isn't as if the right whingers would blame a worldwide economic crash on labour and the poorest members of society is it 😆
, it's always somebody elses fault with tne left).
Do you think the press coverage of Corbyn so far has been fair and balanced?
Shame we don't have any conviction politicians to the right.
Well IDS probably was and look where that got the Tories. Problem with conviction politicians is that to win support both internally and externally sometimes you need to compromise with others or change views when new data arises.
There is doubt over how Corbyn is going to win over the support of Labour MPs he's p*ssed off over the years. If he can't win over his own MPs then he is doomed to failure.
stumpyjon - MemberShame we don't have any conviction politicans to the right.
What about Boris Johnson? What do you think his widespread support is based on ..... his amusingly unkempt tussle of shockingly blonde hair?
BTW stumpy you obviously don't think that Jeremy Corbyn is a conviction politician if you believe that his policies are "[i]populist nonsense[/i]". If a politician is pursuing policies because they are popular then it suggests that they not motivated by conviction.
TBH I thought the single greatest criticism of Corbyn was that his policies would be deeply unpopular with the electorate should he become Labour leader. You presumably don't agree?
The press and establishement coverage of Corbyn has been so desperately critical regardless of normal allegiances he's definetly unpopular with the Lizard overlords, wouldnt suprise me if he comes to a sticky end in some mysterious and slightly implausible fashion.
ernie_lynch - MemberWhat about Boris Johnson? What do you think his widespread support is based on ..... his amusingly unkempt tussle of shockingly blonde hair?
Boris doesn't do convictions, he's a lifelong opportunist and changes direction more or less with the wind.
George Osborne, now there's a conviction politician. It's just not so easy to spot, because of his innate dishonesty
Boris' hair,-
he famously messes it up before going on camera, so he obviously thinks its an integral part of his appeal
Well IDS probably was and look where that got the Tories. Problem with conviction politicians is that to win support both internally and externally sometimes you need to compromise with others or change views when new data arises.There is doubt over how Corbyn is going to win over the support of Labour MPs he's p*ssed off over the years. If he can't win over his own MPs then he is doomed to failure.
An article in the Guardian yesterday making [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyn-mutineer-ids-tory-labour-leadership ]just that point[/url]
Jezza on Five Live just came over a bit too 'I'd like to teach the world to sing' on the subject of immigration. If he refuses to acknowledge (as Ed did) that labours core working class vote have genuine concerns about mass immigration cutting wages and putting a strain on public services, then he's absolutely no chance of winning back the ones who have defected to UKIP en masse in what were previously nailed on labour strongholds
genuine [i]unfounded[/i] concerns about mass immigration
FTFW. I think, in this case, the electorate needs to be told what's right rather then be left to decide for themselves. And if they're voting for UKIP, well, balls to 'em, frankly. They're not making as much difference as we feared.
I'm not convinced IDS won the leadership because of his relative appeal to the grass roots or his convictions, I think he won because Ken Clarke ran an incredibly lazy and arrogant campaign giving the impression, once Portillo was out, that he was the only one entitled to the leadership and therefore didn't need to lay out a vision for the future. I certainly knew One Nation Tories who voted for IDS because they were umimpressed with Clarke.
the electorate needs to be told what's right rather then be left to decide for themselves.
You're familiar with how this whole 'democracy' thing works?
Whether you, or I, or Jezza likes it or not, those concerns are not considered to be trivial and glossed over in certain more shall we say 'economically challenged' areas of the country, where the benefits (nice polite Latvian nannies, very reasonably priced Polish builders to put up your new conservatory) are less felt, and the other side (companies only advertising minimum wage jobs abroad, and not recruiting locally) are very real. These people are (or were) the labour core vote. So telling them that they're wrong isn't really going to work is it? It didn't for Ed.
Without commenting on whether this is right or wrong, just look at the results. In the Middleton by election last year - the absolute embodiment of a nailed on labour seat - UKIP came within a whisker of overturning a 6,000 labour majority, with an increase in their vote of 36%
Now if you're not even going to engage with that, like Ed didn't, then you've absolutely no chance of winning a general election. This is your core vote. And they've deserted you en masse. They've told you why, but you don't want to talk about that, you'll just tell them they're wrong
Yep.... that'll work! Off you pop to prepare for government then....
For the record.. Dave won't do a thing about immigration, as a ready supply of cheap labour suits his mates just fine, in keeping wage costs down. But watch his posturing on the subject. He's bright enough to know that he has to [i]say[/i] he wants to stop mass immigration, while actually not intending to do a thing about it. In fact its risen markedly on his watch.
But the labour party will just tell everyone, mainly their former core vote, that they're wrong instead? And then expect them all to come flocking back to them? Good luck with that!
@dd I listened to some of the debate this morning, the candidates are still struggling with answering criticisms of the voting process and in particular how it makes the Labour Party look like it couldn't run a "mass drinking event in a brewery". There was one interesting comment from a Corbyn supporter who said many of his friends (Corbyn supporters) would rather be in opposition as a radical party of the left than in government as Blair-ites, I suppose that is why a candidate of protest like Corbyn is popular with them. Corbyn's QE proposals whee heavily critiqued by the other candidates who pointed out how the resulting inflation would hurt ordinary people
The earlier post from @ernie spoke of how Foot struggled with splits in the parliamentary party, what I read is Corbyn has the support of less than 20% of the MPs and he only got the 35 nominations as some MPs thought it would broaden the debate, they never intended to vote for him. If Corbyn wins he'll have a dreadful time trying to pull the MPs together, from what I've seen he has no experience of doing such a thing, he's a protest campaigner not a leader. He won't commit to what his policies will be just "put proposals forward", that's all dreadfully wishy washy. I read Prescott has been very concerned about Hunt and Unmana's new "think tank", I doubt they'll form a new breakaway party but deep divisions look likely. Whatever problems Foot had Corbyn will suffer many times over, pretty much the entire hierarchy of the parliamentary Labour party past and present is against him.
Binners +1
And the more worrying thing for Labour is if the Tories manage to persuade those looking at UKIP that in fact the Tories are the party of the Blue Collar worker. The last budget was clearly aimed that way and I'd expect more over the coming months / years.
Whatever problems Foot had Corbyn will suffer many times over, pretty much the entire hierarchy of the parliamentary Labour party past and present is against him.
Which says a lot more about the PLP than it does about Corbyn. It's about time they woke up and realised that the party is so much bigger than them.
jambalaya - Memberthe candidates are still struggling with answering criticisms of the voting process
3 out of 4 of the candidates want to encourage criticisms of the voting proceess.
jambalaya - Member
the candidates are still struggling with answering criticisms of the voting process
you keep banging on about how flawed the voting process is and calling it a shambles but can not articulate why. you are criticising a process for what its outcome is when you don't like what (seems likely to be) the outcome
you keep banging on about how flawed the voting process is and calling it a shambles but can not articulate why. you are criticising a process for what its outcome is when you don't like what (seems likely to be) the outcome
How about the fact that Matthew Paris was able to register all of his pet llamas as Labour supporters - they all got a vote. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit flawed ?
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4531215.ece ]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4531215.ece[/url]
If that doesn't convince you, think that the process was the brain [s]child[/s] oozing of Ed Milliband. 🙂
Are llamas more right leaning, generally?
All llamas are Nazis. FACT.
Adjusted to match reality (they were rejected as they couldn't be matched to the electoral roll)How about the fact that Matthew Paris [s]was[/s] wasn't able to register all of his pet llamas as Labour supporters - they [s]all got[/s] didn't get a vote.
cranberry - MemberHow about the fact that Matthew Paris was able to register all of his pet llamas as Labour supporters - they all got a vote. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit flawed ?
From the bit you can read without paying, he intentionally registered them at the last minute knowing they wouldn't be vetted before the voting instructions went out. Does he mention in the article that the vetting is still ongoing and that invalid votes can still be cancelled after voting? Or does he just pretend that they've gone through the whole vetting process when they've not?
[b]Matthew Paris in Being a Dick Shocka!!![/b]
I don't understand why you'd let anyone in the UK vote for a leader of your party/company/quango etc. when they clearly don't have enough information to make a rational judgement. For that reason it is clearly a massively flawed process. Tossing coin or rolling a dice would have been as effective (and less open to bias and corruption I may add).
[quote=munrobiker ]I think, in this case, the electorate needs to be told what's right rather then be left to decide for themselves. And if they're voting for UKIP, well, balls to 'em, frankly. They're not making as much difference as we feared.
and right there you have one of the big problems with the attitude of many in the upper reaches of the Labour party
(yes I know binners already did a thorough job, but I thought a one line summary might be useful)
The labour party (Jezza included) doesn't seem to have learnt that it has to have a policy on ALL the issues. Not just the ones that it personally wants to talk about.
If something like immigration comes up, a subject that appears to be a very touchy subject with the upper middle class liberals presently running the party, it simply refuses to engage with it. They then retreat and seek comfort in the world as they would like it to be (happy multicultural societies living in peaceful harmony with each other), as opposed to the world as it really is. Well other parties like UKIP will bang on about it, sometimes not entirely honestly (no...really!), til the cows come home.
Until it shows its serious in even discussing these uncomfortable subjects - a sort of necessity when wanting to formulate policy that people have to actually vote for - then it will remain unelectable. If you think that unlimited immigration is a good thing, thats fine. But tell the electorate why you think that, and make the argument. Don't just say its fine because you happen to believe it, and you said so, and you're more intelligent than them, so best not worry your little prole heads on the issue.
See also: The Economy
I don't understand why you'd let anyone in the UK vote in a general election election, when they clearly don't have enough information to make a rational judgement. For that reason it is clearly a massively flawed process. Tossing coin or rolling a dice would have been as effective (and less open to bias and corruption I may add).
I don't understand why you'd let anyone in the UK vote in a general election election, when they clearly don't have enough information to make a rational judgement.
But in theory you do, I can pop along to my local branches of the parties and discuss first hand with my MP and prospective MPs. I can read their manifestos, often they will send people to the door. I am voting for someone to represent my views in parliament.
This is different from a party leader, they are there to run the party, so they set the tone, they decide where priorities for budgets and team effort go. They need to set the agenda and strategy, and win the internal arguments to ensure the party stands behind them come what may. Only the internal of the party can have enough info to decide if the candidate has enough credentials.
At present the leadership contest is like letting Sainsbury's, ASDA, Morrisons and Waitrose vote for the CEO of Tesco. Madness.
They then retreat and seek comfort in the world as they would like it to be (happy multicultural societies living in peaceful harmony with each other), as opposed to the world as it really is.
What is the world really like then ?
If you think that unlimited immigration is a good thing, thats fine. But tell the electorate why you think that, and make the argument. Don't just say its fine because you happen to believe it, and you said so, and you're more intelligent than them, so best not worry your little prole heads on the issue.
That is not what they believe in and you have fallen for the right wing BS there
I agree with the general thrust of your post about enaging but that is just not their position on immigration. Might be more effective for the labour party if even left wing folk did fall for right wing BS as they had read it so often they start to think its true.
Without commenting on whether this is right or wrong, just look at the results. In the Middleton by election last year - the absolute embodiment of a nailed on labour seat - UKIP came within a whisker of overturning a 6,000 labour majority, with an increase in their vote of 36%
Labour polled the exact same percentage in the by election as in the General election of 2010. I am not sure why you want to spin this as them collapsing
They then polled a couple of percentage points more in the general election
IMHO some folk massively overplay and overstate the immigration card
The right wing press bang on about and it gets traction even amongst traditional labour/left wing folk like Binners
You're missing the point.
And I'm not getting into a discussion about immigration. I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another. But you are prepared to accept that its an issue?
I'm merely pointing out that immigration is one of a number of key issues that the labour party is uncomfortable with, so simply refuses to discuss. Thus it leaves anyone else to come in and say what they like, unopposed. It seems to me that there are now more big issues - benefits, the economy- trivial unimportant stuff like that - on which the labour party has absolutely nothing at all to say. If it believes in something (ie: mass immigration, benefits for disabled people), then its certainly keeping it to itself. From all the candidates (bar Corbyn) the silence is deafening. At least he's come out in defence of the welfare state. I've not heard a squeek out of the rest of them. The ones who refused t oppose the latest cuts 'for the sake of party unity'.
Like Milliband before them, they're so terrified of saying something that won't play well n a focus group, that whole swathes of the political landscape are declared off limits, and they're talking bland nothingness, in endless platitudes, an vague lazy soundbites, about nothing of any importance.
And everyone is duly ignoring them
[s]Everyone is[/s] A lot of people are ignoring someone - Labour under Corbyn would attract 22% of voters and the conservatives are on 42%:
[url= http://order-order.com/2015/08/25/labours-22-strategy/ ]Makes Ed look popular[/url]
This thread is starting to look like the longest suicide w*nk in history.
would that be the same pollsters that predicted Eds landslide at the last election cranberry?
Labour under Corbyn would attract 22% of voters and the conservatives are on 42%
But the Tories will have self-destructed over the Eu referendum before the 2020 general election 😉
would that be the same pollsters that predicted Eds landslide at the last election cranberry?
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11526576/New-poll-on-April-9-Who-will-win-the-General-Election.html ]Apparently not :-)[/url]
Though they did suggest a narrow Labour win on that occasion.
cranberry - MemberEveryone is A lot of people are ignoring someone - Labour under Corbyn would attract 22% of voters and the conservatives are on 42%:
Based on his long record of leadership leading up to the election, of course.
cranberry - Member
This thread is starting to look like the longest suicide w*nk in history.
Ahaaa! {said Stewie Griffin from Family Guy}
[img] 
/revision/latest?cb=20120905115634[/img]
(Ref: [url= http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Stewie_Griffin ]Image from family guy wikia.com[/url])
This might sound a bit wierd, but I'm beginning to think "Jeremy Corbyn. **** it, why not?" 😯
Just looking at the numbers in that poll, and they seem pretty contradictory tbh...
"Some 57 per cent of Labour voters said they would stick with the party if he becomes leader and 36 per cent of Greens would switch to him. But 26 per cent of Labour voters said they would abandon the party. And he would pick up only 8 per cent of Tory votes, 9 per cent of Ukip votes and 18 per cent of Lib Dem votes."
Miliband took 29%, so if 26% of labour voters abandon the party that still leaves 21.5%. That's even without taking into account the votes gained from other parties, which is 2,104,902 in total.
(shows working:
26% of labour voters is 2430299.04 people
36% of greens 416740.68
8% of tories 904008.72
9% UKIP 349298.91
18% Lib Dem 434855.16
Leaving aside SNP)
So... The article and the "voting intentions" part of the poll say 22%, but the vote transfer maths says about 28%. With 20% of Labour voters undecided.
TBH that's so daft that the simple explanation is that I've gone off on a wrong one, but if so I don't know where... If I'm right then the poll basically doesn't stand up to sanity checking.
Polly Toynbee (good God can't believe I've written her name) has some decent (shocker!) analysis of Corbyn and votes. She notes that to win the election he has to bring Tory voters over, the numbers just don't work otherwise.
So that's his challenge if he wins the leadership, what policies has he got that will move voters from Tory over to Labour?
So that's his challenge if he wins the leadership, what policies has he got that will move voters from Tory over to Labour?
Well a fair few conservatives like me have voted for him 🙂
Perhaps not in a general election though, all things considered.
binners - Member
The labour party (Jezza included) doesn't seem to have learnt that it has to have a policy on ALL the issues. Not just the ones that it personally wants to talk about.If something like immigration comes up, a subject that appears to be a very touchy subject with the upper middle class liberals presently running the party, it simply refuses to engage with it....
Perhaps he'll fix that by not letting psychopaths control our "defence" policy.
Then instead of destabilising middle east countries and creating massive waves of refugees, we can have [i]happy multicultural societies living in peaceful harmony with each other[/i].
dragon - Member
Polly Toynbee (good God can't believe I've written her name) has some decent (shocker!) analysis of Corbyn and votes. She notes that to win the election he has to bring Tory voters over, the numbers just don't work otherwise.
Surely just getting the disillusioned non-voters off their bums to vote would do that.
After all, if you're one of the underclass, and the major parties have similar peasant-crushing policies, what is the point of voting?
There's millions of votes just sitting on their arses on election day.
The SNP showed they can be mobilised.
Miketually Labour could also self destruct during the EU debate if led by Corbyn as he is generally opposed to the EU (voted against Maastricht and Lisbon treaties) and his policies of re-nationalisation of key industries as I understand it would fall foul of EU rules.
dragon - MemberMiketually Labour could also self destruct during the EU debate if led by Corbyn as he is generally opposed to the EU (voted against Maastricht and Lisbon treaties) and his policies of re-nationalisation of key industries as I understand it would fall foul of EU rules.
Ya, but he will open the flood gate to world population innit! Bet his ideal is the billion people march with red flags. 😆
There's millions of votes just sitting on their arses on election day.The SNP showed they can be mobilised.
There aren't and the SNP didn't. The SNP did see a bit of an uplift in voting, but the numbers are not enough to change an election result from Tory to Labour. England if you look at the numbers are more engaged with GE voting than Scotland, so there are less English 'non-votes' to pick up.
Northwind - MemberJust looking at the numbers in that poll, and they seem pretty contradictory tbh...
I've found the Corbyn thing to be very interesting. The rival candidates do seem to struggle with dealing with him. What is apparent to me is that he offers and alternative to the status quo and something different to the current crop of would be prime ministers. Perhaps he could be successful, not trying to win back SNP seats or taking votes from UKIP but by tackling one of the largest proportions of the electorate - those who didn't even bother to vote.
From todays Guardian some proper numbers:
Labour needs 94 more English and Welsh seats. To win those, four out of five of the requisite new Labour voters need to be stolen from the Tories. Perhaps Corbyn is a game-changer, but without Tory votes he needs to be a magician.
Even if he caused a turnout surge as strong as the SNP’s in those marginals – 7.4% – and even if all of them voted Labour, that only yields 52 seats. Even if he won every Lib Dem and Green voter, that’s not enough. If Ukip collapses, their vote divides equally between Labour and Tory, so no use. The old out-vote the young, so can he win more over-65s?
Polly Toynbee (good God can't believe I've written her name) has some decent (shocker!) analysis of Corbyn and votes. She notes that to win the election he has to bring Tory voters over, the numbers just don't work otherwise.
Maybe so, but equally, he won't win without winning SNP votes back.
@kona I've posted on this a coupLe of times, the process is a shambles as anyone can vote for £3. I've no doubt I could have registered and voted, there is no way they could have excluded me (unless doing as some people have suggested which is anyone they haven't heard of who votes for Corbyn). I'm not a member of any party or ever have been etc. The Telegrapfh pointed this out a month ago.
I can't believe people are still claiming immigration isnt an issue and a very real one. The Labour Party commissioned some research post their defeat and immigration was the number 1 or 2 issue with voters who'd moved away from Labour in the key seats they have to win back to form a government. When the news is full of pictures of the disruption at Calais, you've got tear gas going off in Macedonia and the Hungarains (first Schengen state on the way Orth) is building a border fence/wall over 100 miles long people will make their own mind up about immigration. There was a major riot in Germany outside an immigration centre in the last couple of days.
We have two types of immigration in the UK, uncontrolled from within the EU and controlled from everywhere else.
@dragon, yes exactly. That's why IMO you need to appeal to the centre ground to win a UK election.
Corbyn isn't going to make Labour more credible and that was a key weakness in 2015 for the party. Labour cannot win an election with the party faithful, they need to win over / win back people who've kept the party and most of those have left from the centre and not from the left. Getting back the Green Party votes and even winning back Scotland won't make enough of a difference.
The old out-vote the
That may change...
Maybe so, but equally, he won't win without winning SNP votes back.
Depends how you define winning, Scotland is a red herring as the SNP would find it difficult not to support a left wing government in the UK so the key is to win the most seats*, but that is a lot less than 90. Once this happens it is all to play for. That said I don't think Corbyn is the one to achieve this, but that is a personal view.
* May not even need to do this, depriving the Tories of a majority is the first step.
That may change...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27865991 ]Which would be bad for a left wing party[/url]
Corbyn isn't going to make Labour more credible and that was a key weakness in 2015 for the party.
I don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan and voters appreciate someone who knows where he stands and seems to have conviction. Cameron's a bastard, but you know he's a bastard and he doesn't really attempt to play it any other way. People had no faith in Ed and didn't really know who he was or what he was about. I reckon Corbyn will do better than most think.
To win those, four out of five of the requisite new Labour voters need to be stolen from the Tories. Perhaps Corbyn is a game-changer, but without Tory votes he needs to be a magician.
Given what a low turnout we have he does not need to steal a single vote from any other party. If he can persuade non voters to turn up that alone will suffice.
I also think there was a lot of not voting for ed ; even labour party supporters were "inspired " by hi,
Not
What @mefty says, it's not Scotland Labour need to win back to form a Government.
I don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan
By both Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.
Some people from Venezuela and Zimbabwe did question the policy of printing money until it had no worth, but don't worry, they have been decried as tories and enemies of the revolution.
cranberry - MemberI don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan
By both Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.
Some people from Venezuela and Zimbabwe did question the policy of printing money until it had no worth, but don't worry, they have been decried as tories and enemies of the revolution.
[img]
[/img]
Hugo Chavez is dead...and has been for over two years.
That's the trouble with facts. As shown yesterday, with some embarrassing posts in the IDS thread, sometimes they get in the way of some lazy trolling.
Junkyard - lazarusIMHO some folk massively overplay and overstate the immigration card
The right wing press bang on about and it gets traction even amongst traditional labour/left wing folk like Binners
The free movement of labour is a right-wing dream come true which is why it is central to the EU's neo-liberal right-wing agenda and why European conservatives defend it so passionately.
It treats people not like living beings with needs, emotions, relationships, etc, but as nothing more than a commodity to be used and exploited in pursuit of greater profit.
A completely unrestricted open door immigration policy while clearly irrational for a country such as the UK allows however the low wages and/or high levels of unemployment in a country such as Slovakia to be fully exploited.
I allows employers whose primary object is to maximizes profit with no regard for the greater good and any social responsibility to employ, for example, a fully skilled worker from a low wage economy rather than force them, due to skilled labour shortages, to train unskilled UK school leavers.
The UK has no responsibility to solve or reduce unemployment in other countries by importing their unemployment problems. Foreign nationals, despite the lies peddled by racists and bigots, do not come to the UK to scrounge, they come to work. And that is precisely what they do.
Furthermore there is something underlying racist about the majority of those who champion the EU free movement/open door policy as they don't extend the same logic beyond the borders of Europe. If completely unrestricted immigration from other EU countries is acceptable and logical then why is it not from countries such as Bangladesh or Nigeria? If we have a social responsibility to 700,000 Poles who face lower wages and higher unemployment in their own country then why ffs don't we have a social responsibility to 700,000 Syrians fleeing war and brutality?
The UK doesn't actually have an 'open door policy', it has 'one door wide open and the other door shut' policy. It is a racist immigration policy which does an excellent job of avoiding appearing racist - foreign EU nationals can be black/arab/asian/etc don't you know.
Hang on a minute, I fully support free movement in EU and I'm a complete lefty.
Mind you, I'm very much in favour of opening up the borders further than the EU, too. Not all at once but gradually.
Rachel
This leadership election has shown up a lot of Tories as dishonest chancers. And then to brag about it- beggars belief!
Hang on a minute, I fully support free movement in EU and I'm a complete lefty
can you agree with free market fundamentalism [i]and[/i] be a complete lefty ?
This leadership election has shown up a lot of Tories as dishonest chancers. And then to brag about it- beggars belief!
If the Labour Party are stupid enough to give anyone in the country a £3 vote then the consequences are on their own head. £3 well spent IMO.
Actually I'd have qualified for a vote through my union membership anyway but the £3 vote was simpler. Go Jeremy!
This leadership election has shown up a lot of Tories as dishonest chancers. And then to brag about it- beggars belief!
If the Labour Party are stupid enough to give anyone in the country a £3 vote then the consequences are on their own head. £3 well spent IMO
Looks like you're spot on with your assessment, ctk 😉
Furthermore there is something underlying racist about the majority of those who champion the EU free movement/open door policy as they don't extend the same logic beyond the borders of Europe. If completely unrestricted immigration from other EU countries is acceptable and logical then why is it not from countries such as Bangladesh or Nigeria?
Because the free movement was set up when the EU was a collection of broadly similar economies. You can either have a welfare state or fully open borders. Not both.
But what about Jeremy? Off to start a new thread
Because the free movement was set up when the EU was a collection of broadly similar economies.
The similarity ends when you have 700,000 Poles living in the UK and nowhere near that number of Brits living in Poland. That doesn't suggest "broadly similar economies".
Assuming of course that it's not the weather and the food which attracts the Poles to the UK.
Foreign nationals, despite the lies peddled by racists and bigots, do not come to the UK to scrounge, they come to work. And that is precisely what they do.
But do they not sometimes then go home again taking money and skills with them?
Foreign nationals, despite the lies peddled by racists and bigots, do not come to the UK to scrounge, they come to work. And that is precisely what they do.
That's precisely what people don't want to see. i.e. come to work.
It's all about competition and not much to do with the skin colour. People do not welcome competition unless they can stand a definite chance of gaining the upper hand and even if they can gain the upper hand now, the question remains as to whether their future generations can maintain that.
😯
The free movement of labour is a right-wing dream come true which is why it is central to the EU's neo-liberal right-wing agenda and why European conservatives defend it so passionately
Must be why the [uk]conservatives love it so much
One can also see why its advantageous to individuals to live where they choose anywhere in the EU [ or world for that matter]
Whilst Poles may come here we go to other countries and the figure is a fairly even balance 2.3 m v 2.2 million. IIRC before the eastern states joined we had more UK national abroad than immigrants.
Again we never hear of that in the news do we.
Its neither helpful nor accurate to claim this anymore that it would be fair for me to say your attitude of british jobs for british workers is racist.there is something underlying racist
FWIW we also used to this with the commonwealth and its still not "even" for outside the EU. Its not a fair system but I dont think its racists as all regions restrict immigration* and its just that our border is the EU and not the UK
* does any country have no restriction on immigration? Israel does but only for Jews IIRC anywhere else?
@kona I've posted on this a coupLe of times, the process is a shambles as anyone can vote for £3.
that's not evidence of a shambles. that's you just disagreeing with one of the purposes of the exercise: to open up selection of the next leader to voters who aren't members of the Labour Party (and as a handy side effect generate a pretty big injection of cash). That objective seems to have been wildly overachieved - hardly a shambles.