|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 27, 2015 15:36:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 15:59:09 GMT
Seeing has he's changed his view on the Privy Council, singing the national anthem, wearing poppies then I doubt anyone would notice. If you think about it they started in the centre ground with Tony, moved slightly left with Gordon, then slightly further left with, Ed then a big lurch even further left with Jeremy, can you imagine where they will end up next when they finally realise that Corbin is completely unelectable. Tony most definitely was right of centre
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 27, 2015 16:08:38 GMT
If you think about it they started in the centre ground with Tony, moved slightly left with Gordon, then slightly further left with, Ed then a big lurch even further left with Jeremy, can you imagine where they will end up next when they finally realise that Corbin is completely unelectable. Tony most definitely was right of centre To a leftie maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 16:20:38 GMT
Tony most definitely was right of centre To a leftie maybe. To most historians and political commentators.
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 27, 2015 16:26:14 GMT
To most historians and political commentators. Yes the left leaning ones
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 16:36:54 GMT
How can you say he should never been elected leader under the circumstances he was? It was an entirely democratic and inspiring process. New Labourites, as you call them, are a parasite that have no place in the party. Labour is a left leaning party and it should remain that, it serves no purpose as an opposition party in the centre - the Liberals were there long before Labour even existed.  He should never have been elected if you want Labour to win a general election. On the other hand if winning an election is not important - then Corbyn is your man. So you're essentially saying it was wrong for Labour members, fed up of the Blair/Brown New Labour neoliberal years, to elect a decent, honest principled politician? Good grief....
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on Nov 27, 2015 16:47:02 GMT
I interpreted his comments to mean that it’s one thing to have a man of principle as leader, but Corbin’s principles make him unelectable therefore while he’s in charge Labour will never win a General Election.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 16:49:21 GMT
He should never have been elected if you want Labour to win a general election. On the other hand if winning an election is not important - then Corbyn is your man. So you're essentially saying it was wrong for Labour members, fed up of the Blair/Brown New Labour neoliberal years, to elect a decent, honest principled politician? Good grief.... No - I'm saying if winning an election is what you want, it was a mistake to choose Corbyn as leader. If you are happy to be in opposition it was not a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Nov 27, 2015 16:55:41 GMT
So you're essentially saying it was wrong for Labour members, fed up of the Blair/Brown New Labour neoliberal years, to elect a decent, honest principled politician? Good grief.... No - I'm saying if winning an election is what you want, it was a mistake to choose Corbyn as leader. If you are happy to be in opposition it was not a mistake. Not sure they will even be the official opposition the way things are going. They'll be the third party wandering around in the wilderness.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 27, 2015 17:01:47 GMT
So you're essentially saying it was wrong for Labour members, fed up of the Blair/Brown New Labour neoliberal years, to elect a decent, honest principled politician? Good grief.... No - I'm saying if winning an election is what you want, it was a mistake to choose Corbyn as leader. If you are happy to be in opposition it was not a mistake. There is of course a third way - not in the Blairite sense either. Namely that the election of Corbyn paves the way for a more conventionally electable leader but one that nonetheless shares the majority of his views. And one who's less compromised by their own rebellious past so is able to sweep out the New Labour rot and provide strong leadership.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Nov 27, 2015 17:14:12 GMT
No - I'm saying if winning an election is what you want, it was a mistake to choose Corbyn as leader. If you are happy to be in opposition it was not a mistake. There is of course a third way - not in the Blairite sense either. Namely that the election of Corbyn paves the way for a more conventionally electable leader but one that nonetheless shares the majority of his views. And one who's less compromised by their own rebellious past so is able to sweep out the New Labour rot and provide strong leadership. Up steps Hilary? Once Corbyn has drawn the poison.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Nov 27, 2015 17:31:50 GMT
The Oldham Election is going to be massive for Labour. A poor showing and Corbyn will be in very serious trouble.The knives that are now being sharpened will come out.
But that leaves The Parliamentary Labour Party in serious trouble..given that Corbyn has such an overwhelming manadate from The Labour Party overall.
Whichever way you look at i..it doesn't look good.
Unless you're a UKIP supporter.
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Nov 27, 2015 17:40:50 GMT
If you think about it they started in the centre ground with Tony, moved slightly left with Gordon, then slightly further left with, Ed then a big lurch even further left with Jeremy, can you imagine where they will end up next when they finally realise that Corbin is completely unelectable. Tony most definitely was right of centre Tony wasn't right about anything!
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 17:53:27 GMT
There is of course a third way - not in the Blairite sense either. Namely that the election of Corbyn paves the way for a more conventionally electable leader but one that nonetheless shares the majority of his views. And one who's less compromised by their own rebellious past so is able to sweep out the New Labour rot and provide strong leadership. Up steps Hilary? Once Corbyn has drawn the poison. Yeah - he was the person I was thinking about. I can see him leading Labour into what will be certain defeat in 2020, but he may keep the scale of defeat to a low enough level to give them hope for 2025. At which point, how about Stephen Kinnock is the top man. Politics does seem to like dysenteries, sorry, dynasties. I'm thinking more Bush, Clinton here.
|
|
|
Post by jacques on Nov 27, 2015 18:34:24 GMT
No, the real question is we won’t beat IS without a coalition of ground troops, so how many more people need to die by beheadings, suicide bombs or AK47 gunfire before we wake up, go in, and rid the world of IS forever. HOW MANY PEOPLE. As the thread is basically about Corbyn's refusal to support air strikes then I'm afraid it is the question. Who on here supports bombing Syria? You've missed the point. The question isn't whether Corbyn supports air strikes at all. That's the red herring. It's why did Corbyn arrange a shadow cabinet meeting on Thursday, which essentially disagreed with his view on air strikes, agree to adjourn the meeting, then send a letter out immediately after it adjourned expressing that he would not change his mind. Protocol is that Corbyn has to wait for the shadow cabinet to reach a collective agreement on it. Corbyn doesnt agree with killing terrorists on the spot (shoot to kill). He doesn't support targeting bombing of ISIS military targets. He does support the anti-war coalition who are, this weekend, heavily "lobbying" (ie blackmailing) shadow cabinet MP's to get them to back Corbyn's position. Corbyn is weak. If he doesn't grant MP's a free vote, this will destroy him.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2015 18:36:53 GMT
The Oldham Election is going to be massive for Labour. A poor showing and Corbyn will be in very serious trouble.The knives that are now being sharpened will come out. But that leaves The Parliamentary Labour Party in serious trouble..given that Corbyn has such an overwhelming manadate from The Labour Party overall. Whichever way you look at i..it doesn't look good. Unless you're a UKIP supporter. or boris johnson
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 27, 2015 22:13:31 GMT
There is of course a third way - not in the Blairite sense either. Namely that the election of Corbyn paves the way for a more conventionally electable leader but one that nonetheless shares the majority of his views. And one who's less compromised by their own rebellious past so is able to sweep out the New Labour rot and provide strong leadership. Up steps Hilary? Once Corbyn has drawn the poison. Could well be mate. I've a funny feeling that if that does happen it could be someone more under the radar though. Wasn't Cameron fairly obscure when he took over the Tories?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2015 0:19:26 GMT
As an old friend of mine used to say just because someone as written it in a book or a paper it does not mean it is true. The torygraph is at one end of the politicaal spectrum (with lots of money and power backing it). The morning star has a differnt view. linkI don't agree with either. One is rich, one is on it's arse. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Maybe? To be honest I do not have a clue anymore.
|
|
Moosehead
Youth Player
Posts: 306
Location: Nottingham
Member is Online
|
Post by Moosehead on Nov 28, 2015 7:25:38 GMT
Up steps Hilary? Once Corbyn has drawn the poison. Yeah - he was the person I was thinking about. I can see him leading Labour into what will be certain defeat in 2020, but he may keep the scale of defeat to a low enough level to give them hope for 2025. At which point, how about Stephen Kinnock is the top man. Politics does seem to like dysenteries, sorry, dynasties. I'm thinking more Bush, Clinton here. I did read something along these lines a few weeks ago (IoS or Observer, I think). A few sources said that Corbyn would come in, shake things up a bit and you'd see an electable leader arrive in 2/3 years ready for the election push. What has concerned me most about the first 12 weeks of the leadership, and makes me agree with the subject of 'The Labour Party is Fucked' is how easy the media have been able to paint Corbyn as a nutcase, not through his politics, but through the privy council and Remembrance Day stuff. The same as Milliband became unelectable because the narrative of hime being 'a bit sounding a bit weird' was bought hook line and sinker by everyone. I disagree that labour will be unelectable though next time around. A lot will happen in the next 4 years that will play into Labour's hands, they aren't making the most of it right now, but there is more than enough time to form a decent opposition.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 28, 2015 8:05:05 GMT
Yeah - he was the person I was thinking about. I can see him leading Labour into what will be certain defeat in 2020, but he may keep the scale of defeat to a low enough level to give them hope for 2025. At which point, how about Stephen Kinnock is the top man. Politics does seem to like dysenteries, sorry, dynasties. I'm thinking more Bush, Clinton here. I did read something along these lines a few weeks ago (IoS or Observer, I think). A few sources said that Corbyn would come in, shake things up a bit and you'd see an electable leader arrive in 2/3 years ready for the election push. What has concerned me most about the first 12 weeks of the leadership, and makes me agree with the subject of 'The Labour Party is Fucked' is how easy the media have been able to paint Corbyn as a nutcase, not through his politics, but through the privy council and Remembrance Day stuff. The same as Milliband became unelectable because the narrative of hime being 'a bit sounding a bit weird' was bought hook line and sinker by everyone. I disagree that labour will be unelectable though next time around. A lot will happen in the next 4 years that will play into Labour's hands, they aren't making the most of it right now, but there is more than enough time to form a decent opposition. Yup. Get the man on the street wound up about minor irrelevances like Jeremy's bow angle to distract from actual policy. The media moguls and their friends in high places are terrified of Corbyn because on the off-chance he did get elected in 2020, he'd knock them down a peg or two and try to really empower the man on the street. Still, democracy wouldn't be democracy without greed, lies, spin, misrepresentation and rampant corruption, would it?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 28, 2015 8:54:45 GMT
Tony most definitely was right of centre To a leftie maybe. I'm not sure if left or right captures Blair adequately. What can be said of Blair is he did take one core part of Tory thinking to heart - politics is about power, or more specifically, politics is about being in power. To understand this properly you need to go back to 1992 when Labour lost a General Election they thought they had in the bag (Kinnock - Sheffield; We're all right x 3). At that moment Labour, in their despair, decided the only way forward was to win at all costs even if it meant wearing Tory clothes - this became glaringly apparent after John Smith's death when Blair was elected on a platform of, basically, I will win the election. Which thanks to, arguably the worst Government in history losing the plot entirely, he secured. What became apparent was Blair hadn't thought much beyond power (read Chris Mullin's diaries of that time for an excellent insight) but he understood two principles of power very well; unity in the party and presentation. And look how it delivered - until the Gordon Brown stepped up and unity and presentation disintegrated. This is the key to power. Labour are clearly currently destitute in both areas - and the consequences are as inevitable as night follows day. The party that has learned the same lessons, and applies them ruthlessly, is the SNP. And the consequences are there for us all to see. More reasons why the Labour Party is currently fucked.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 28, 2015 10:03:50 GMT
So you're essentially saying it was wrong for Labour members, fed up of the Blair/Brown New Labour neoliberal years, to elect a decent, honest principled politician? Good grief.... No - I'm saying if winning an election is what you want, it was a mistake to choose Corbyn as leader. If you are happy to be in opposition it was not a mistake. I can't believe there are people who think he has a chance at a general election. A massive told you so coming up in 2020
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 28, 2015 10:07:44 GMT
I did read something along these lines a few weeks ago (IoS or Observer, I think). A few sources said that Corbyn would come in, shake things up a bit and you'd see an electable leader arrive in 2/3 years ready for the election push. What has concerned me most about the first 12 weeks of the leadership, and makes me agree with the subject of 'The Labour Party is Fucked' is how easy the media have been able to paint Corbyn as a nutcase, not through his politics, but through the privy council and Remembrance Day stuff. The same as Milliband became unelectable because the narrative of hime being 'a bit sounding a bit weird' was bought hook line and sinker by everyone. I disagree that labour will be unelectable though next time around. A lot will happen in the next 4 years that will play into Labour's hands, they aren't making the most of it right now, but there is more than enough time to form a decent opposition. Yup. Get the man on the street wound up about minor irrelevances like Jeremy's bow angle to distract from actual policy. The media moguls and their friends in high places are terrified of Corbyn because on the off-chance he did get elected in 2020, he'd knock them down a peg or two and try to really empower the man on the street. Still, democracy wouldn't be democracy without greed, lies, spin, misrepresentation and rampant corruption, would it? He is a right wing media dream though. If he wants to be elected he needs to concede certain elements to get his priorities across. It's about compromise. I don't see him compromising some policies to get the ones he wants. He wants them all. Autocratic by nature but doing it softly spoken Autocratic all the same
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 28, 2015 10:09:31 GMT
Take trident. There is no way he would push through scrapping of trident. So rather than have it as a stick to beat him just ignore it.
We know he's privately against it but no need to bang on about it because he can't do anything about it
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 28, 2015 10:49:47 GMT
Yup. Get the man on the street wound up about minor irrelevances like Jeremy's bow angle to distract from actual policy. The media moguls and their friends in high places are terrified of Corbyn because on the off-chance he did get elected in 2020, he'd knock them down a peg or two and try to really empower the man on the street. Still, democracy wouldn't be democracy without greed, lies, spin, misrepresentation and rampant corruption, would it? He is a right wing media dream though. If he wants to be elected he needs to concede certain elements to get his priorities across. It's about compromise. I don't see him compromising some policies to get the ones he wants. He wants them all. Autocratic by nature but doing it softly spoken Autocratic all the same He could get a lot more support if he was just a bit more media savvy certainly mate. And he wouldn't even need to compromise his beliefs to do that but he's so anti-slick presentation that he's cutting his nose off to spite his face. That said, the right-wing media would obsessively lash out at him no matter how shiny his suits, clean-shaven his face, meat-filled his sandwiches or smooth his patter. His problem is part his own making and part the fact that we don't actually live in an entirely free or fair democracy. Autocratic is good isn't it? I don't hear anyone criticising Maggie or Winston for that trait. When they did it, it was rebranded as being "authoritative" and "no-nonsense"
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Nov 28, 2015 11:09:09 GMT
When he is removed, it'll certainly make Labour look a lot more 'in touch' than they were before the election...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2015 18:19:27 GMT
To most historians and political commentators. Yes the left leaning ones Nah that isn't true either. I wrote my dissertation on the c**t
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 30, 2015 18:22:29 GMT
So is Corbyn allowing a free vote for his MPs an embarrassing u-turn? A common sense descision by its leader despite his own views? Or a way to avoid a coup. I'd say all 3
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Nov 30, 2015 20:16:06 GMT
Whether you like him or not Corbyn is a terrible choice as Leader. He is one of Life's Outsiders and no doubt struggles with authority and having to 'crack a few heads open' metaphorically.
But you can't make an omelette without smashing a few eggs and this is something Corbyn is very uncomfortable with obviously.
Had he not allowed his MPs a free vote it would have split the shadow cabinet. But when he allows a free vote..he is seen as weak and not being able to hold his party together.
Such is the portrayal of Corbyn by the media. Some kind of Traitor for not supporting the bombing of Syria.
But he's not the only one is he? It is just 'Lefties' who are opposed to a bombing campaign. David Davis,hardly a leftwinger is also opposed along with about 50 Tory MPs.
Maybe some pro bombers in the shadow cabinet are already jockeying for position when Corbyn goes..and using the Syrian Situation to set out there stall.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Dec 1, 2015 0:11:35 GMT
Corbyn - decent, honest and principled???? Pull the other fucking one.
His stupidity outweighs everything but don't make out as though he is principled. If he was principled then he would have resigned or sacked the cabinent members that wouldn't go with him.
That didn't happen though did it so he's fine for us to go bombing the Syrians rather than fall on his sword.
He's so fucking stupid it defies belief.
|
|