Watson is a numpty who cannot admit he has wasted his political career. Of course their will be some entyists on the left - but Corbyn is massivly popular all over the left - huge increase in membership. huge mandate from the party at large. to think otherwise is simply bonkers and shows a willingness to ignore the facts.
As for marginal constituencies - how do you know?
The real entryists are the rightwingers who had taken over the labour party and taken it to a party of the centre right and who lost all the natural support of the party. People like Watson and Benn. They hijacked the party and are now facing losing control
The real entryists are the rightwingers who had taken over the labour party and taken it to a party of the centre right and who lost all the natural support of the party. People like Watson and Benn
Wait a minute there - Watson was democratically elected into post by the membership (plus registered and affiliated supporters) just like Corbyn was.
His mandate to stand up and say what he thinks is just as strong as Jezza's
Tom Watson's accusations come from opening his eyes and ears and taking in what's going on around him.
If that were true he wouldn't need to quote allegations made in a book 20 years ago.
I don't think reading what someone alleged 20 years ago constitutes "opening his eyes and ears and taking in what's going on around him".
.
We didn't say Corbyn wasn't popular, he is popular with a section of the party faithful, those from the hard left and those who where evicted from the Labour Party for example.
He got as many votes from Labour Party members as all the other candidates put together. You call that "a section of the party", everyone else calls it half the party.
"Those who where evicted from the Labour Party" don't come into it.
For all your protestations you are very clearly attempting play down Corbyn's popularity by claiming that it is restricted to the "hard left".
And everyone agrees that Corbyn will almost certainly receive support from the majority of party members this coming leadership election. Even with the ballot rigged in his opponents favour by excluding a quarter of party members.
Just "the hard left" supporting him ? Yeah right.
Hi, I'm from a marginal constituency and I voted Corbyn and will again. My mum joined the Labour Party to vote Corbyn and my dad is a long time Labour member and voted Corbyn. None of us has ever been involved with militant SWP etc nor are we in momentum. I know only a few more LP members all voted Corbyn, 1 will vote Corbs again the others I'm not sure. (none are LW entryists- not by a long shot!)
If you look at this thread there are more RW (cycnical) entryists than left wing entryists!
nor are we in momentum.
Does that matter? Is it something to hide/be ashamed of?
Tom Watson's comments are like a STW post frankly. Yes there are some "entryists", and some will be trots, former militants, all that. But they can only possibly be a drop in the bucket, for the simple reason that there's barely enough trots in the UK to take over your living room never mind the biggest political party in the UK. Watson's right to say there's evidence of entryism but he's blowing it ridiculously out of proportion.
I think objectively Corbyn's response is simple and rational- do the numbers. There's simply too many new members to dismiss them as headbangers as so many people want to do.
In the end, Corbyn's likely to steamroller the vote and all this talk of entryists will be as valid as it was last time; the goal only seems to be to undermine the perception of the vote.
What would Tom Watson know? Has ever been in a meeting with Jezza? Is he in the same party even?
He doesn't seem to be even listening or aware during PMQ and wasn't he airbrushed from the meeting photo records recently ("I don't think this is a good idea my old Wykehamist mucker"?)
he goal only seems to be to undermine the perception of the vote.
next part of plan innit, we've had briefing the Tory press, the MPs "revolt" and then this nonsense election. What's next; assassination attempt?
tmh, they didn't airbrush him from the shadow cabinet meeting. Corbyn asked Sky to stop filming and when they where invited back Watson had gone, he was excluded from the meeting.
Watson's career is going from strength to strength. He'll be around long after Corbyn has departed. As I've said before he's a powerful and effective campaigner for Hacked Off. Impressive speaker too.
What the "right wingers" did is get Labour elected for 13 years. What the left wingers are doing is ensuring that won't happen again.
Wrong again Jamba. The first Blair government was elected on a platform / manifesto built by Kinnock and Smith. Both centre left. The platform was fairly radical and all the truly left wing policies enacted were legacies from this time and from the time when conference decided policy.
Once Blair got control of the party machine and moved it to the right then vote fell ever election until they lost their majority.
Right wing labour has lost 3 elections in a row.
How odd. So lets see
1983 Foot - 28% vote, loss
1987 Kinnock - 31% vote, loss
1992 "we're alright" - 34%, loss ooops
1997 Bliar 43%, win - how did that happen? *
2001 Bliar 41%, win - again??? extraordinary
* and what was he promising in 1997?
In each area of policy a new and distinctive approach has been mapped out, one that differs both from the solutions of the old left and those of the Conservative right. This is why new Labour is new. We believe in the strength of our values, but we recognise also that the policies of 1997 cannot be those of 1947 or 1967. More detailed policy has been produced by us than by any opposition in history. Our direction and destination are clear.The old left would have sought state control of industry. The Conservative right is content to leave all to the market. We reject both approaches. Government and industry must work together to achieve key objectives aimed at enhancing the dynamism of the market, not undermining it...
....We have modernised the Labour Party and we will modernise Britain. This means knowing where we want to go; being clear-headed about the country's future; telling the truth; making tough choices; insisting that all parts of the public sector live within their means; taking on vested interests that hold people back; standing up to unreasonable demands from any quarter; and being prepared to give a moral lead where government has responsibilities it should not avoid.
Britain does deserve better. And new Labour will be better for Britain.
Tony Blair
Anyone care to do a brief update on this thread? Is Jamba still posting opinion masquerading as 'facts'? Is Binners still posting long rants which are simply a regurgitation of pretty much everything else he's posted so far (plus some 'witty' images)? Is Ninfan still posting stuff with little or no relevance to this discussion (or any other, for that matter!)? Has Stoner actually put his money where his mouth is, and gambled his home on a massive tory majority at the next GE?
Has anyone actually posted anything meaningful, insightful or otherwise interesting? Or is it just a continuation of the same old shit?
It's just that it's a beautiful day, I'm fortunately not chained to a desk, and I'd rather be outside enjoying myself. 😀
Usual nonsense from the usual suspects.
Ernies posts are usually good value, Jambas for ther comedy value. THMs I don't see so I have no idea what level of nonsense he has posted 🙂
teamhurtmore - Member1997 Bliar 43%, win - how did that happen? *
John Smith died and Tony Blair inherited the winning hand that Smith and yes Kinnock before him had built.
And tbh I think you know that. "Blair made Labour electable" is just part of the creation myth. Ironic really that in days of Corynists and Blairites, Labour needs Smiths- but they've all but forgotten him.
Anyone care to do a brief update on this thread?
Despite it being summer, the panto season has come early courtesy of HM Opposition. Very funny except for the fact there is a real job to be done.
Has anyone actually posted anything meaningful, insightful or otherwise interesting? Or is it just a continuation of the same old shit?
Jezza did say something new about a Bank for the North the other day and did seem to like Milton Keynes and our cycling teams - according to twitter - otherwise not really. Its all a bit regressive.
"Blair made Labour electable" is just part of the creation myth.
Of course because before he-who-cannot-be-mentioned came along, we were "alriiiggght...." everyone loved old Neil didnt they. He was a shoe-in....
"Jezza did say something"
No, I meant you and all the other frothers. I'm well aware of what JC is saying, I don't need this thread to keep up with that. 😆
Thanks Tjagain. The 'usual suspects' have ignored any questions asked of them, which isn't surprising. I was hoping to read what Jamba thinks about the rise in far-right anti-Semitism, but it appears he'd rather slag off Corbyn than engage with a genuine issue. Which sort of sums up this thread; loads of bitching and whining, keyboard warriors in a frenzy of froth, but no meaningful substance. OK. Thanks for the heads up! 😀
BTW - I do include myself in " the usual nonsense from the usual suspects" 🙂
No, I meant you and all the other frothers.
Really???? Did i miss that....'eck 😉
loads of bitching and whining, keyboard warriors in a frenzy of froth, but no meaningful substance.
Have you seen this then:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn?lang=en-gb
@clod
this is
stw
@tj we all know we can't please all the people all the time and some of the people we can never please 🙂 pretty much everything I have posted in this thread has been a remark or is supported by elements of the Labour Party including pretty much 100% of the Labour hierarchy that have fought elections since the 1970's and 80's
As for our anti-racism campaigning definitely no anti-semitism in the party JC the leader .. we have 92% of Jewish Labour Movement supporters voting for Smith. 92%
Wrong again Jamba. The first Blair government was elected on a platform / manifesto built by Kinnock and Smith. Both centre left.
John Smith died and Tony Blair inherited the winning hand that Smith and yes Kinnock before him had built.
And theres me remembering all the fuss about Blair amending Clause IV, when it turns out that apparently this made [i]no difference at all[/i] in the 1997 election.
who knew?
State Banks. Having worked with and indeed for 9 months for state owned banks I can say in my experience there is not a worse combination that banks and political ownership. German State owned (amd thus tax payer guaranteed banks) where some of the worlds largest investors in US sub-prime. Remember their state charter was to support regional business in Germany, their action was to pile into truely toxic sh.t
For the 10th ? time feel free to read every single post of mine as
[imo]
[/imo]
Tony Blair was elected on Tony Blair's platform. Kinnock did the hard yards to get rid of [s]Momentum[/s] Militant Tendancy
Jamba - simply wrong. Even if its just your opinion its simply not true. He did not have control of policy making.
all this discussion
neglects
that
labour are far ahead
in the polls
and
would easily win an election held today
Margaret Beckett hits the nail squarely on the head
Ms Beckett said: “If what Jeremy is saying is that he is going to punish the General Secretary and staff for decisions that were perfectly and properly made, that seems to me [b]not like 'kinder gentler politics', but like bullying and spite."[/b]She added: “It does seem to me that there is a risk of people around Jeremy and perhaps Jeremy himself, thinking that what matters is: ‘does he get the decision he wants' not 'is this what's right in law'.”
[url= http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2 ]Far ahead, you say?[/url]
Is that a bit like "neck and neck" in the polls?
@theauthorities - what are you talking about Labour are 12 points behind and would be slaughtered. We have fixed term Parliaments now, thats the only reason the Tories aren't calling an election. The only mechanism for an early election is for them to lose a vote of "no confidence"
imo
He did not have control of policy making.
What on earth is that even supposed to mean?
Its blatant revisionism to claim that Blair stood on a Kinnock/Smith policy manifesto - neither of them went anywhere near as far as Blair did in changing the direction of the party in order to make them electable
Get this right, Blair actually changed the constitution of the party in order to abandon one of the central tenets of Labour Party policy. "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange"
How on earth was that just "inheriting" John Smiths policies?
Because thats the facts. the policy of the party at that time was made by conference. Not Blair. Blair later changed that but IIRC not until after his first win. Same as the first cabinet was appointed by vote at conference not by Blair.
Again IIRC this was not changed until after Blairs first election.
That's not my memory of it. The driving force behind the changes was Blair.
Here's an article from the time:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/defining-moment-as-blair-wins-backing-for-clause-iv-1611135.html
Indeed Blair did drive thru a lot of changes that pulled the party to right of centre - and clause 4 was before the election. But the bulk of the policies he was elected on were put together at conference not at his call and his first cabinet was people elected by conference not appointed by him. the changes took place over a number of years from 95 onwards.
From the labour parties own site
"This was followed in 1996 by the publication of New Labour, New Life for Britain, the draft manifesto that was discussed and [i]voted upon by party members across the country[/i].
Later on Blair took total control over the manifesto removing the need for it to be voted on by the entire party and allowing a further move to the right.
the policy of the party at that time was made by conference. Not Blair. Blair later changed that but IIRC not until after his first win.
Thats right, Blair changed it so that he, alone, could make LP policy:
[i]3. When in Government the NEC, the seven backbench members of the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) plus the Chair of the PLP, the Cabinet, the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF, two CLP members of the NPF to be elected by CLP delegates to the NPF, and eight Trade Union members of the TULO Contact Group, shall decide which items from the party programme shall be included in the manifesto which shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto.
4. When not in Government the NEC, the Shadow Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) and the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF shall decide which items from the party programme shall be included in the manifesto that shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto.
[/i]
🙄
Has this thread overtaken the Scottish Independence thread yet, in no. of posts?
If not, I suspect it will soon and keep running for the forseeable future....still so much bollox to spout from all sides!
(what is the longest ever STW thread BTW?)
THMs I don't see so I have no idea what level of nonsense he has posted
Is this a premier member feature? I may sign up! 😆
[b]Revisionist History AS Paper 1[/b]
All candidates will be expected to ignore the positive impact played by Bliar in the electoral success of the Labour Government 1997-2005. Reference to landslides will be penalised heavily. Higher grade students will be required to overplay his role in its downfall and cite direct evidence of his sole responsibility for it. No reference should be made to the level of vote achieved in relation to the Party's positioning on the historic notion of the RW/LW political spectrum, nor the personal approval ratings secured in the aftermath of the "People's Princess" moment, nor the 95% support for the changes from previous Labour administration laid out in the 1997 manifesto.
A* 40-49%
A 35-40%
B 30-35%
C 25-30%
D 20-25%
Extra marks to be awarded for poor spelling and use of inappropriate grammar
Is this a premier member feature? I may sign up!
No its made up - use of blocking software is not allowed in the rules
AA - its a little webby gizmo someone wrote a few years ago that allows you to block certain users. What I see when THM posts is:
teamhurtmore - Member
teamhurtmore said something stupid.
It has two effects. one I no longer see his posts and two it amuses my inner child.
No its made up - use of blocking software is not allowed in the rules
Queensbury?
No the STW version - now the chance to see how consistently they are applied! 😉
Extra marks to be awarded for poor spelling and use of inappropriate grammar
Your shitting me!! Finally a markskeme i can excel in.
[quote="anagallis_arvensis"]
No its made up - use of blocking software is not allowed in the rules
Queensbury?
Its not made up. this thingy( i think its called a script) was written years ago by a forum member and offered freely to all people on the forum. NO fuss was made by the mods at the time. Its very useful and amusing.
