Forum menu
🙂
I always look to gobby Scouse defenders for political direction 😀
there was an interesting debate/conversation on the radio 4's pm show. the premise was that the left wing parties should "unite" and field just the 1 candidate, either labour, liberal or green for example and try and squeeze the tories out that way some professor of politics from the tartan lands postulated it would gain the labour party IIRC 50-60 seats and double libdems count to 18-20 seats. David Steel was very pro reminiscing on the good ol' days of the lib-lab pact (skipped over the sdp-lib splitting the left vote in 83 though), Caroline Lucas was very pro on condition that pr was on the table (though the prof didn't think they would win any more seats). The labour guy, Ian Austin was very anti and dismissive of the idea. Though I did think he missed an open goal by not reminding David Steel that libdems propped up a minority tory government and why would they help them do that again ? I think it always sounds promising in theory but I don't think it works in practice.
the premise was that the left wing parties should "unite" and field just the 1 candidate
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/04/richmond-park-byelection-lib-dems-brexit-sleaford-earthquake ]Andrew Rawnsley addresses just this point today in the Observer[/url]. Given the horror scenario of a UKIP-tory coalition there's a good case. Won't happen though whilst Corbyn is leader of labour as he seems set on a pro-brexit stance to appease white working class people who won't vote for him.
No, you've forgotten the important bit. Corbyn supports brexit, but with one proviso...
Unlimited immigration.
Not fussed about access to the single market.. I mean, who cares about that, right? - but we must maintain unlimited freedom of movement at all costs.
Talk about reading the mood of the voters?
It's like he's having a competition to see what single policy will lose you the most votes. There's another by-election on Thursday, where they''ll do just as well as they did in Richmond. Not that that will even register with that clueless ****-wit
You really couldn't make it up!
wrong Binners - where did you read that. He wants access to the single market and understands we need freedom of movement to get it
He doesn't. Not read the papers today uncle Jezza?
He's a moron. A vote-repelling machine!
Nope - its the rtest of the labour party that do that I am afraid. I'll give two examples from Scotland. Labour health spokesman claiming half a billion cuts in the scottish NHS - outright lie. Budget is up 3% and also press release stating how much expenses the scottish snp mps are taking and how little they attend - turns out their average is much less than labour MPs for expenses and they attend more!
Its the whole labour machine that is the issue. They have forgotten how to lead and thus try to be all things to all people, they lie continually and they don't realise we see thru them
Bet they lose their deposit again on Thursday
Labour will seek to amend any bill on the Article 50 process to withdraw from the EU, Jeremy Corbyn has reiterated.
The Labour leader told Sky News this was to ensure Britain maintained access to[b] Europe's markets, workers' rights and environmental protection measures.[/b]
But his party would respect the EU referendum result, he said.
It comes as the government prepares to go to court on Monday to challenge the High Court ruling that it must consult MPs before triggering Article 50.
Mr Corbyn said: "When the Article 50 debate comes up we will put forward an amendment to it which will be on the issues I've just said on market access and protections.
TJ - It's impossible to know what Labours position is, there's so much contrary briefing between Corbyn and the rest of the party nobody knows where they are headed
Yup - thats the issue with them not Corbyn. I have seen Corbyn make an announcement and Watson contradict him within hours
Corbyn is quoted above - the bit =in bold is not what binners thinks he says.
There is no doubt some want to follow the xenophobic press. Idiots! and that is why they have lost my vote and support. Benn, watson, Cooper et al. Not Corbyn
No the issue is Corbyn as he is no leader and as such he has no control over his own people or party. Hence, the public have no idea what the party position is on many issues, that will play very badly come polling day.
It's weird isn't it? You come out on the day of the referendum result and call a press conference to announce that you think article 50 should be triggered IMMEDIATELY!!! then you spend the next few months backtracking from that position. And you wonder why people don't know what the hell your position is
Voters eh?
Idiots!
🙄
Binners - shame your rant about corbyn is completely contradicted by direct quotes from the man himself.
He doesn't need me to contradict him comrade. He makes a habit of regularly doing that to himself.
I wonder what this weeks position will be?
It takes some doing to make the 3 stooges look consistent, and on message, but Jezza seems to manage it all by himself.
IIRC, old jezza did a sensible flip flop from being anti single market but pro freedom of movement to being pro both. Ludicrous to sensible...someone obviously "had a word"
Still that is music to Nuttall's ears no doubt
shame your rant about corbyn is completely contradicted by direct quotes from the man himself.
Doesn't matter what Corbyn says, or what his supporters say, or whether it's justified or not. The simple fact is that he's become an object of ridicule in the mind of the general populace. Labour MPs have resigned themselves to the fact that they're going to have to suffer a catastrophic election defeat to get rid of him, and they're quietly pursuing this strategy of undermining him without mounting direct attacks as they did before. It's almost admirable TBH, given that they are the ones who will suffer most by losing their seats.
Come on TJ we all know Corbyn was delighted with the Referendum result. He has spent his whole career ranting and blogging negatively about the EU. John McDonnell spoke about the great opportunities Brexit provided and then Kim Starmer on Andrew Marr this w/e kept dodging the question about opportunity and the best he could come up with that Brexit provided the opportunity for us all come together 😀
Commentators have noted Labour got less votes in Richmond than they have members, as Marr pointed out Labour voters voted Lib Dem, Marr treid to say that it was that LibDems offered real anti-Brexit choice my view it was purely tactical. Labour voters voted for the party that might win.
The other interesting question is whether many of those Richmond Labour party members joined to vote for Corbyn as leader but in fact support other parties ? 😉
where did you read that. He wants access to the single market and understands we need freedom of movement to get it
Corbyn Speech 5th November:
[i]We will be pressing for full access to the European single market as part of the Brexit negotiations
We won’t offer false promises on immigration targets or sow divisions by scapegoating migrants …
Instead we will tackle the real issues of immigration, support fair rules on migration, and take decisive action to end the undercutting of workers’ pay and conditions through the exploitation of migrant labour.[/i]
So, which is it, 'freedom of movement' or 'fair rules on migration'?
But wait, what's this from September:
[i]“There are directives and obligations linked to the single market, such as state aid rules and requirements to liberalise and privatise public services, which we would not want to see as part of a post-Brexit relationship.”[/i]
Sounds like he wants to have his cake and eat it!
It's the Sleaford by-election this Thursday. I'm unaware of whether the Mods will be present.
The Tories will walk it, but I'd put my house on UKIP leap-frogging Labour into second, having nicked all their former voters, and with the lib dems scoooping up the middle class, anti-Brexit lot, labour finishing dead last with a minuscule percentage of the vote, and probably losing their deposit. Again.
Corbyn will once again say nothing, change nothing, and blindly bungle on to lead the Labour Party into repeating exactly this scenario all over the country, at the next general election. So the former 'heartlands' will look like Scotland does now. A Labour free zone
Binns, you are being harsh. Jezza was
Yesterday, I visited Terezin Memorial - a World War II concentration camp and former Jewish ghetto. Never forget
responding to recent criticism - deserved or otherwise - yesterday. Good for him.
Token gesture TMH he declined to visit Israel recently and sent Tom Watson instead to a global Labour Party event. The head of the Israeli Labour Party said on British TV recently Corbyn "has a problem with Jews". As far as I am aware he last visted the region (Gaza) at the invitation of and paid for by Hamas.
C'mon Jambas, small steps and all that. Give the old boy a break.
[quote="dazh"] - Member
Doesn't matter what Corbyn says, or what his supporters say, or whether it's justified or not. The simple fact is that he's become an object of ridicule in the mind of the general populace
And why is that? - the antics on the labour front benches. Watson, Benn, Cooper etc are the problem briefing against him. Not Corbyn.
He's not a very good leader by any chance?
Jamba - will you stop with the antisematic lies. You have repeatedly been show to be completely wrong on that.
One anti-Semitic quote from Corbyn please. Just one ( note anti Isreal does not equal anti-Semitic)
And why is that? - the antics on the labour front benches. Watson, Benn, Cooper etc are the problem briefing against him. Not Corbyn.
(I reluctantly had to conclude that) even so, this is still a Corbyn issue.
Those people are his staff. He needs to manage them, get them inspired and motivated to work for him and push his vision for what Britain and British politics should be.
If he can't get them on board then he's failing as a leader. Just like if a company's staff think their boss is a witless oaf and refuse to work for him, you can't say it's everyone else's fault. The boss has to bear some responsibility - it's what he's paid for.
Corbyn seems a nice bloke with some good ideas. But he isn't a leader.
And why is that? - the antics on the labour front benches.
Yes, that's part of it. Also part of it is that he's a sh*te and - most importantly - unwilling leader, another that the media are out to get him. But it doesn't matter any more, the damage is done. There is no way he can come back from it. The only choice left for him is to step aside in the hope that labour's fortunes can turn around under someone else, or hang on and take the party down with him. I'm still hoping he'll take the third option of staying long enough to reform the party then stepping aside, but as the hole he digs gets bigger, the harder it will be to get out of it.
Or a 4th option Dazh - turn Labour into what it was - a ground up not top down organisation where the elected representatives represent the peoiple who vote for them
Undo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
Some encouraging signs with the large influx of members. Just need to get rid of the deadwood at the top. Those so deluded they cannot understand their antics are destroying their party.
But I do agree its very hard to see how it can be turned around now
turn Labour into what it was - a ground up not top down organisation where the elected representatives represent the peoiple who vote for them
Isn't that the 3rd option I just mentioned? I totally agree that's what the labour party should be, but not with him at the head of it going into the next election.
Actually another part of it is that the team around him are hopelessly out of their depth. The cyber physical systems stupidity is a perfect example. I've never worked in PR or the media, yet even I could have seen that was a stupid thing to do. Somehow, the idiots around him in the space of little over a year, have turned him from an anti-establishment honest voice of the people, into an elitist urbanista with the personality of a jaded history lecturer. That takes some doing.
Undo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
Ahh yes, those dirty, election winning swine - never again, never forget.
😆
Undo the damage done by Blair and Mandleson which turned Labour from a mass membership party to one of a tiny membership
Ah, the re-writing of history continues. Let us airbrush the success of the Sedgfield model from Labour's history lest Tony Blair ever be associated with anything positive!!!
Labour has a history of successfully winning new members but one of losing them quickly too!
cranberry - thats a myth tho - under Blair labours vote and polling consistently dropped. It was Kinnock and Smith who made labour electable again. Blair sewed the seeds for the state labour is in now by hollowing it out.
Alternatively
Following Tony Blair’s election as leader in 1994 a sustained expansion of Labour’s membership took place. As well as benefiting from local strategies to target members, the party allocated considerable resources to recruitment at a national level in the form of advertisements and staff. Labour also benefited from an extremely favourable political climate in which the Conservative administration was exceptionally unpopular in the opinion polls.
Never let facts get in the way of a good yarn...
Is THM still answering my posts?
[quote="teamhurtmore"]
teamhurtmore said something stupid.
is all I see
No just correcting your regular factual errors. Its like a PSA!
Fact check:
THM's quote is correct for the first few years but Blair was leader for a bit longer than that. Membership did indeed rise from 92 til 96, but it then fell steadily for the entire remainder of Blair's leadership. By 2001 it was back at the level it was in 92. And by 2007 it was about half what it had been in 92.
"There was a fall in membership during Labour’s time in office between 1997 and 2009"
(just for clarity, I know Blair was no longer leader by 2009- that's just when it bottomed out on that long decline from 97
Source: House Of Commons.
teamhurtmore - MemberNever let facts get in the way of a good yarn...
True - NW, I was addressing the whitewashing of the success of the Sedgefield model and the rise of party membership under Blair's leadership. Of course you are correct about this being unsustainable too - hence my comment about Labour being very good at losing members.
Life is often different in power - ask Cleggy!!
TJ he has turned a very blind eye to disgraceful anti-semitic behaviour again and again. He has facilitated the cover up of anti-semtic behaviour by party and Momentum members at OULC. When you get someone who has met with, invited to Westminster (thus legitimising) deeply anti-Semitic individuals, desribed Hezbollah and Hamas as friends and been chairman of an organisation riddled with anti-semites in Stop The War, then that's complicit.
The Labour Party has never been a less safe space for Jews than it is now. I have heard that first hand from Jewish Labour Party members, most recently in October.
The Commons Home Affairs Committee said Corbyn had created a [b]safe space for anti-Semitism[/b] in the Labour Party.
TMH he could have published the first anti-Semitism report in full (imo he did not as it's too daming and he has promoted some of the activists). He could have presided over a real investigation under Chakrabati rather than the whitewash she produced in retrun for a peerage. He could have intervened when a Momentum activist used an age old anti-Semtic remark that Jews control the media in a conspiracy at the public meeting where he was supposed to be releasing the Shabrabati report. One of his very few Jewish MPs left the meeting as a result and his responce was to cosy up all smiles to the abuser.
cranberry - thats a myth tho - under Blair labours vote and polling consistently dropped. It was Kinnock and Smith who made labour electable again.
versus
Following Tony Blair’s election as leader in 1994 a sustained expansion of Labour’s membership took place.
Anyone can see which is factually correct - except those who block me of course. They are destined to remain in the darkness.
Kinnock 272k
Smith 279-305K
Blair 94-97, 305k - 405k
By 2000 back to 311k
And now Jezza's back and better than all of them!!! 😉
[By 2009, it was under 40 per cent of what it had been when Labour was elected to office in May 1997.] Such a decline was all the more noteworthy, of course, because back in the mid-1990s developing a mass membership base was taken to be a defining feature of New Labour, one that was intimately associated with Tony Blair’s leadership of the party and with techniques pioneered in Sedgefield, his parliamentary constituency in the North-East of England. Between 1994 and 1997 membership had increased spectacularly, reaching just over four hundred thousand, but thereafter the party had proved unable to hold onto its membership. Moreover, the increase since May 2010 does not appear to have been sustained.
For those opposed to staying in the dark, the source was
Labour’s lost grassroots: the rise and fall of party membership
Well, we all know that in the 21st century, in this brave new world of technology, communication, and social media, the barometer for forthcoming electoral success is surely increasing the number of people who carry a little card around with them, in their wallet, or purse, to announce which political party they intend to vote for.
That and the tractor production figures. Good tractor production figures are essential too eh comrade!
Well, we all know that in the 21st century, in this brave new world of technology, communication, and social media
[img] 
[/img]
Jamba - so nothing then at all just attacks from his political enemies
Not a single antisemetic remark or action from him at all that you can quote in any way.
so once again you are shown to be talking baseless rubbish