“The level of abuse over the last four months is on a totally, totally different scale from anything ever before. It is directly linked to people purporting to support Jeremy,”
Who was asking if STW was representative of the wider society? 😉
For proof of "ends justify the means" as a political strategy (ie, get into power at whatever cost)one only needs to look North
Are you saying Corbyn's policies appeal to a minority of extreme nutters?
Nutters on the extremes, rather than extreme nutters. The few percent of the population who you might as well leave unrepresented (leave them to the Greens) as their aren't enough of them to vote you in.
Some great quotes from the general public on COrbyn from the Guardian article on the Oldham election:
[b]Corbyn seemed to be saying ‘let bygones be bygones. Let’s hide under a rock’ or something. I think he’s a pussy.”[/b]
[b]“Just another liar”[/b]
[b]“He’s an idiot,” “It’s all the things he comes out with. He needs to get his act together.”[/b]
and for some balance:
[b]“I like him,” she says. “I think they have to go in that direction – more peaceful.”[/b]
Some great quotes from the general public on COrbyn from the Guardian article on the Oldham election:
Like the guardian is an objective source for opinions on Corbyn! You might as well quote the daily mail.
policies that appeal to a tiny minority of nutters
Rail renationalisation - most are in favour
Reform of the energy companies - most in favour
Borrowing to invest in public infrastructure - most in favour
Abolishing tax loopholes for the rich and corporations - most in favour
Avoiding destructive wars - most in favour
Total loony left stuff all that. 🙄
Irrelevant. The Establishment are NOT in favour, and they know best, okay?Most in favour
Is there a poll for this?
yes
[img] 
[/img]
@molgrips as many of us have said the centre ground wins UK elections and Corbyn is way way off to the left of the centre ground. As such his policies do not appeal to the majority.
I think it is a lot more complicated than that, Jam.
The left/right/centre spectrum concept does not accurately model how peopel think and vote.
Mefty - is that approval rating? Not the same thing at all. I was talking about policies, not personal approval rating.
The left/right/centre spectrum concept does not accurately model how peopel think and vote.
I does to quite a great extent imo. However in the case of Corbyn much of his appeal is based on the fact that he appears to be significantly different to most other politicians - he speaks what he thinks and believes, not what someone has told him he should think and believe.
Many people across a fairly broad political spectrum find this highly refreshing and rather appealing.
It models the big/small government thing, but many policies have cross spectrum appeal. Like the NHS, railway nationalisation, taxing big companies, taxing fat-cats and so on.
People are generally fairly left wing, they just let themselves be convinced by whoever spins the best bullshit.
Agree with Molgrips, I'm sick of being labelled left or right. I'm tend one way on finance / bebefits etc. but would be considered to be at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to things like equal rights, gay marriage etc.
I do find Corbyn's honesty refreshing but I don't find many of his views appealing and would never vote for him. However I do agree with most of what says about air strikes.
many policies have cross spectrum appeal.
Which policies?
If you really want "cross spectrum appeal" then I would suggest that you look at the Tory-NewLabour-LibDem consensus.
Something which coupled with the perceived "lack of choice" the electorate seem to be fairly pissed off with and turned off by, and something which was so central to Corbyn's rise.
think it is an intersting debate as typical right wing v left wing
There has often been the illusion of consensus as in the post war consensus. The end of which can accurately be termed " I blame Thatcher"
Perhaps those of you who dont see a thing as left or right are the floating voters who decide all elections? YOu can genuinely be swayed by policies as you are not as ideological - I dont mean that as an insult to be very clear.
Personally I cannot see what the choice would be that would lead to me voting tory and I am sure many on here say the same about Labour.
The left/right/centre spectrum concept does not accurately model how peopel think and vote.
Totally agree. I'm not sure it ever did.
Also the idea of people feeling some kind of football-team-esque loyalty to a specific political party is long gone. [1] People are more sophisticated and have their own views on individual issues right now.
many policies have cross spectrum appeal. Like the NHS, railway nationalisation
Paying for 'more' NHS and Rail nationalisation is not popular though, even among people who identify themselves as 'left'. The SNPs 'penny for Scotland' campaign was a disaster - twice.
[1] Ok it's not gone on STW. But even then only one party attracts that kind of "rossette colour" worship. I can't think of any Tories/Liberals/UKIPers/SNPers who identify themselves as such.
molgrips it's nice to write "edit" when you edit your posts.
I does to quite a great extent imo. However in the case of Corbyn much of his appeal is based on the fact that he appears to be significantly different to most other politicians - he speaks what he thinks and believes, not what someone has told him he should think and believe.
Cmon Ernie, you don't really believe this BS do you? Different??? Let's look.
Principles abandoned from day one in favour of pragmatism.
And who's the spin doctor driving all of this. Yes Mr Seumas Milne
Winchester
Balliol
PPE
The new politics indeed. Just how gullible can people be (at least S of the border)?
Principles abandoned from day one in favour of pragmatism.
This. (Quite openly.)
I'm staggered that even his own supporters describe him as a 'different' kind of politician - especially today.
Cameron was unsure he could win a vote on bombing Isis in Syria. Corbyn could have whipped his MPs which have perhaps meant no vote or a vote not to bomb Isis in Syria.
Corbyn then announces it's a free vote and an hour or so later Cameron says "thnakyou very much for those 50 votes Mr Corbyn" and calls a vote.
Why has Corbyn done this? To hang on to his front benchers because it politically suits him to do so.
A few days ago he was the *leader* of the stop the war coalition now he's got a real chance to stop a war, and he's chosen not to try purely because it suits him politically.
Why has Corbyn done this? [s]To hang on to his front benchers because it politically suits him to do so.[/s]Because it is entirely consistent with his belief that demoncracy should mean democracy, because 'whipping' would be hypocrytical and he would have been castigated for it, because it was the right thing to do, because he openly admits that the party is bigger than one man's views.
There, FI(several times over)FY.
Tories be Tories slating people for not acting like Tories.
Because it entirely consistent with his belief that demoncracy should mean democracy, because 'whipping' would be hypocrytical
If this is true then clearly the Labour party won't whipping any votes.
Or is it sometimes democratic to whip?
Whether you like corbyn or not..
This is gonna sound un-pc but whatever.
The guy is spent.. He's old, he lacks strength, just look at him.. He needs to be eating scones in a cafe, not leading a country.
If this is true then clearly the Labour party won't whipping any votes.
Dunno. There's people a lot cleverer and more politically savvy than me who will doubtless be along in a minute to answer that question. Alls I can say is, as someone who has been cautiously impressed with Corbyn's integrity under fire so far, this decision has done nothing to cause me concern.
[quote=mattyfez ] He needs to be eating scones in a cafe, not leading a country.
😆
... not leading a country.
He can't even lead his shadow cabinet.
I see nothibg inconsistent in this. He personally doesn't want to bomb, he is campaigning not to bomb, but he doesn't want to force his party as it's anti democraric, this is not a political vote.
It's probably what I would have done.
There's a lot of talk of "leading" on this thread without apparently much consensus of what that actually means. For instance, 5e, to me leadership does not mean forcing the people you lead to do what you want.
quite shrewd move really allowing a free vote, the closet tories reveal themselves and Jeremy lets the membership/activists do the rest.
You're right, it does. Although I could think of less charitible terms to describe it. Seriously though; How shallow are you? Do you need someone all white teeth, dashing mane and virility to impress you? If so, maybe you want to head across the Atlantic, they've got a sort of politics going on that sounds RIGHT up your street. You'd like Donald Trump; he's got a good strong jaw and can bench 180 or something...mattyfez - MemberThis is gonna sound un-pc...
Or is it sometimes democratic to whip?
I think the reverse is a better question
Is it sometime democratic to have a free vote on issues unconstrained by "party politics". IMHO wars and also say the EU and perhaps electoral reform should be consciousness issues
TBH Corbyn was a hiding form tories whatever he did
1. WHips the vote he is undermining democracy and he has serious issues with in the party/open splits and he is a bully and has no control etc.
2. Does this and he is accused of having no principles and folding.
Both arguments have some merit to them but life and politics is more nuanced and that and all we really have is folk who already disliked him using this version of his decision options as an example to explain why they dislike him.
I also think its credible to be questioning how he has been doing as a party leader and he has certainly bent to the pressure of leadership and he is on a steep learning curve.
Juries out IMHO.
Alls I can say is, as someone who has been cautiously impressed with Corbyn's integrity under fire so far, this decision has done nothing to cause me concern.
Nor me. There's not enough targets for the vast array of bombers as it is so this decision won't cause a single extra casualty. For that reason I'm not bothered whether Corbyn tried to stop it or not.
But that wasn't my point - I was merely agreeing with THM and picking the most recent example of Corybn being just like any other politician and not remotely principled.
For instance, 5e, to me leadership does not mean forcing the people you lead to do what you want.
If they're not doing what you want you've failed to lead.
Hilary Benn's speach was remarkable.
I'd always dismissed him as a hereditary poltician. But he was impressive. Kind of the opposite of JC.
Hilary Benn, you opportunistic little shite, you.
If they're not doing what you want you've failed to lead.
You would quite like dictators as they were really rather good at this 😉
TBH Corbyn was a hiding form tories whatever he did1. WHips the vote he is undermining democracy and he has serious issues with in the party/open splits and he is a bully and has no control etc.
2. Does this and he is accused of having no principles and folding.
He believes the option he chose will cost innocent lives. The other option would merely cost him political capital. If he's dammed either way why not pick the one he thinks is right instead of the one that he claims will cause deaths.
Watching the debate highlights now. Benn got a round of applause - I thought that wasn't allowed.
Hilary Benn, you opportunistic little shite, you.
Explain? What does he have to gain?
Explain? What does he have to gain?
Leadership of the labour party. There's a vacancy coming up.
Oh I dunno...let's all have a think about it.
IIRC, he was all out for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. So, yeah, while we're all masturbating to his fine speech, we should remember how right he was on those ones as well.
OOB, Do you honestly think that if Corbyn had of 'whipped' the party, the result of the vote would have been different? Come on...
Explain? What does he have to gain?
I'm thinking Mr Darcy believes Hilary is pitching for leader after Corbyn has been routed at the ides of March.
Personally (and I love Mr Darcy dearly, but we are not going to agree on this) I think Benn put some drama into a pragmatic speech defending a pragmatic proposition.
Just as Johnson emphasised the "finger jabbing certitude" of those against intervention, Benn drew on the subtleties of the threat, the limitations of the policy, but at the end of it the moral obligation of the vote.
Benn's not a bad man. He's not his father, nor should he be, but made a sound case.
Unlike what the tit cameron came out with last night. Sheesh, what a dick.
Because which ever one he picked folk like you will explain why it was the wrong one.If he's dammed either way why not pick the one he thinks is right instead of the one that he claims will cause deaths.
Oddly this was my point and then you just did it whilst saying it was not true it was just that this was the really wrong one.
Chapeau you proved my point.
Corbyn only dropped the whip when it became clear that half his shadow cabinet would ignore it.
Alan Johnsons speech was rather wonderful earlier, as for Benn being 'opportunistic' - well, it's Corbyns inadequacy that opened the door. I suspect the tories are going to go very easy on Corbyn over the next few days, they won't want to lose their best weapon.
Crbyn knew he didnt have half the cabinet by 20th Nov, but blundered on regardless.
Oh I dunno...let's all have a think about it.
IIRC, he was all out for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. So, yeah, while we're all masturbating to his fine speech, we should remember how right he was on those ones as well.
So how is it opportunistic? You're saying he's always voted for wars?
OOB, Do you honestly think that if Corbyn had of 'whipped' the party, the result of the vote would have been different? Come on...
I think the fact Cameron called the vote immediately after the decision to allow Labour MPs to vote for was taken is strong evidence that Cameron wasn't at all sure he could win if Corbyn didn't lend him the votes he needed. So yeah, I think if Corbyn had "whipped" there may never have been a vote.
However, it doesn't really matter to my point. My point was Corbyn aint principled and this is the latest bit of evidence of that.
I beg to differ.
Corbyn is highly principled and that is why he is inappropriate for leadership. He has no capacity for the pragmatism. He draws on utopianism as a guiding light and only a few people will fall for it.
Electable socialism is the only viable socialism. He is a circus freak.
Corbyn knew he didnt have half the cabinet by [s]20th Nov[/s] when he became leader, but blundered on regardless.
FTFY.
I'm sure those who died fighting in the International Brigade against Franco will be turning in their graves as Benn invokes their memory as he makes a fine speech in favour of sending planes to drop bombs which will inevitably result in the deaths of civilians.
Crass opportunistic little shite.
I'm sure those who died fighting in the Inernational Brigade against Franco will be turning in their graves
Like they'd have turned down air support.
If he's dammed either way why not pick the one he thinks is right instead of the one that he claims will cause deaths.
Because which ever one he picked folk like you will explain why it was the wrong one.
I can't see how that answers my question.