|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 7, 2015 9:40:00 GMT
It's an individual's opinion. Lots of individuals think all sorts of stuff - as demonstrated on this board. The "issue" this thread is dealing with is whose leadership would best deliver an election victory for Labour. The pro-Corbyn faction believe a radical left wing alternative to the Tory austerity approach will do the trick; the other camp believe (I think by and large) that whoever occupies the centre ground wins elections. In other words Corbyn, regardless of being a decent bloke, is an electoral liability. History suggests the latter are most likely to be right. He really isn't that "radical" though is he. This is just another word bandied around by those who want to instill an element of fear into the debate. I'm not saying that this refers to yourself here Partick but certainly many articles i've read from the mainstream press casually refer to Corbyn using such a term, they plant the seeds of doubt and give the ammunition needed to stifle debate. |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 7, 2015 9:44:06 GMT
Like many on here it seems you underestimate the man. Your problem not mine. I understand what you're saying, and in all fairness, Corbyn has lit up an often bland Labour leadership race. But I always draw Labour members back to The Crudass Report into why Labour lost the last general election. The reason Labour lost that election was because the public rejected Labour's perceived anti-austerity economic stance put forward by Milliband - a stance now proposed more vehemently by Jeremy Corbyn. I just feel that Corbyn's supporters need to read that report. That's a myth though isn't it? Milliband wasn't anti-austerity at all, He didn't even say he was during the election campaign did he? I seem to recall him saying that the cuts needed to continue. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 7, 2015 9:52:43 GMT
I understand what you're saying, and in all fairness, Corbyn has lit up an often bland Labour leadership race. But I always draw Labour members back to The Crudass Report into why Labour lost the last general election. The reason Labour lost that election was because the public rejected Labour's perceived anti-austerity economic stance put forward by Milliband - a stance now proposed more vehemently by Jeremy Corbyn. I just feel that Corbyn's supporters need to read that report. That's a myth though isn't it? Milliband wasn't anti-austerity at all, He didn't even say he was during the election campaign did he? I seem to recall him saying that the cuts needed to continue. The public perception was that Milliband was anti-austerity-lite. That's according to The Crudass Report which looked into reactions and reasons why people didn't vote for Labour at the last election. It's an accepted premise that Milliband was to the left of post-1997 Labour manifestos. I sort of agree with this article - www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nicholas-barrett/jeremy-corbyn_b_7947062.htmlEconomically, Britain has shifted to the right, but socially to the left. That's the reason Labour needs to deal with the centre ground, not shift across to the left. If it shifts to the left it reinforces public perceptions of economic incompetence. |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Aug 7, 2015 10:01:21 GMT
It's an individual's opinion. Lots of individuals think all sorts of stuff - as demonstrated on this board. The "issue" this thread is dealing with is whose leadership would best deliver an election victory for Labour. The pro-Corbyn faction believe a radical left wing alternative to the Tory austerity approach will do the trick; the other camp believe (I think by and large) that whoever occupies the centre ground wins elections. In other words Corbyn, regardless of being a decent bloke, is an electoral liability. History suggests the latter are most likely to be right. I know it's an individuals opinion but the fact that Corbyn stands a decent chance of winning the leadership election tells me that it's a more widespread opinion than some on here have suggested which is the main point I was driving at really. I read an article by Polly Tonybee in the Guardian the other day in which she said if she was free to dream she'd have policies even more left wing than Corbyn but essentially in order to change things Labour have got to pretend to be something they're not to get into power and then change the stance to the left when in power which I don't agree with. It would surely be better to send out a clear consistent message and see if the electorate vote for it. It seems to me that Corbyn is engaging young people who would normally otherwise be disengaged with politics which can only be a good thing in my opinion and I really like his message about grassroots politics. The history you mention is important but things can and do change. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 7, 2015 10:21:48 GMT
It's an individual's opinion. Lots of individuals think all sorts of stuff - as demonstrated on this board. The "issue" this thread is dealing with is whose leadership would best deliver an election victory for Labour. The pro-Corbyn faction believe a radical left wing alternative to the Tory austerity approach will do the trick; the other camp believe (I think by and large) that whoever occupies the centre ground wins elections. In other words Corbyn, regardless of being a decent bloke, is an electoral liability. History suggests the latter are most likely to be right. I know it's an individuals opinion but the fact that Corbyn stands a decent chance of winning the leadership election tells me that it's a more widespread opinion than some on here have suggested which is the main point I was driving at really. It would surely be better to send out a clear consistent message and see if the electorate vote for it. It seems to me that Corbyn is engaging young people who would normally otherwise be disengaged with politics which can only be a good thing in my opinion and I really like his message about grassroots politics. The history you mention is important but things can and do change. I think the argument is that the electorate have already sent out a clear message. The public gets what the public wants. Just take a peak at this. It's Labour's very own research into why it lost the election. labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-lost-because-voters-believed-it-was-anti-austerity/ |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 7, 2015 10:25:15 GMT
It's an individual's opinion. Lots of individuals think all sorts of stuff - as demonstrated on this board. The "issue" this thread is dealing with is whose leadership would best deliver an election victory for Labour. The pro-Corbyn faction believe a radical left wing alternative to the Tory austerity approach will do the trick; the other camp believe (I think by and large) that whoever occupies the centre ground wins elections. In other words Corbyn, regardless of being a decent bloke, is an electoral liability. History suggests the latter are most likely to be right. Patrick This is / was indeed the purpose of the thread. I think that you have succinctly summed up the past 19 pages |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 7, 2015 10:32:24 GMT
It's an individual's opinion. Lots of individuals think all sorts of stuff - as demonstrated on this board. The "issue" this thread is dealing with is whose leadership would best deliver an election victory for Labour. The pro-Corbyn faction believe a radical left wing alternative to the Tory austerity approach will do the trick; the other camp believe (I think by and large) that whoever occupies the centre ground wins elections. In other words Corbyn, regardless of being a decent bloke, is an electoral liability. History suggests the latter are most likely to be right. I know it's an individuals opinion but the fact that Corbyn stands a decent chance of winning the leadership election tells me that it's a more widespread opinion than some on here have suggested which is the main point I was driving at really. I read an article by Polly Tonybee in the Guardian the other day in which she said if she was free to dream she'd have policies even more left wing than Corbyn but essentially in order to change things Labour have got to pretend to be something they're not to get into power and then change the stance to the left when in power which I don't agree with. It would surely be better to send out a clear consistent message and see if the electorate vote for it. It seems to me that Corbyn is engaging young people who would normally otherwise be disengaged with politics which can only be a good thing in my opinion and I really like his message about grassroots politics. The history you mention is important but things can and do change. One of the great difficulties, particularly for people whose politics are infused with passion, is to avoid the trap of preaching to the converted and appreciate the need to bring round folk who don't agree. There was a good example of that in the recent referendum - the Yes folk failed to understand the concerns No people had and worse than that started to insult them. Saying they were scared and fooled by Project Fear. So when you quote the like of Polly Toynbee I'm minded of this danger - she's saying exactly what you'd expect her to say. She is one of the converted. It's a big like right wingers quoting that old reactionary duffer Simon Heffer. You are right about politics changing - but big changes don't happen often. I can think of two in modern times - immediately after the Second World War and at the end of the 1970's. Both changes came at particularly turbulent times - actually in response to. I don't think we have those circumstances today so I think the current political neo-liberal consensus will continue for some time. Which is a problem for Labour if they choose Corbyn. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 7, 2015 10:35:05 GMT
I know it's an individuals opinion but the fact that Corbyn stands a decent chance of winning the leadership election tells me that it's a more widespread opinion than some on here have suggested which is the main point I was driving at really. It would surely be better to send out a clear consistent message and see if the electorate vote for it. It seems to me that Corbyn is engaging young people who would normally otherwise be disengaged with politics which can only be a good thing in my opinion and I really like his message about grassroots politics. The history you mention is important but things can and do change. I think the argument is that the electorate have already sent out a clear message. The public gets what the public wants. Just take a peak at this. It's Labour's very own research into why it lost the election. labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-lost-because-voters-believed-it-was-anti-austerity/Without electoral reform the public will never get what it wants. Secondly "the public" are deliberately kept in the dark too much , to be able to make a reasoned decision.Many major issues are viewed as too remote. EG the selling of the RBS shares .Hence a large minority do not vote and do not consider that they can influence things. Many issues are cross party eg on here dome both from the left and the right have said that they could support the privatisation of the railways. As Patrick said could just be an individual's opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 7, 2015 10:44:53 GMT
Hopefully yes...of pseudo socialists like yourself. Listen to me Arsewipe ..... If you want to go down the road of nasty remarks like this , then remember I have just as much right to report you as any one else . You are one big mardarse girl . Mumf Report me for what? Telling the truth? |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 7, 2015 10:45:01 GMT
Without electoral reform the public will never get what it wants. Secondly "the public" are deliberately kept in the dark too much , to be able to make a reasoned decision.Many major issues are viewed as too remote. EG the selling of the RBS shares .Hence a large minority do not vote and do not consider that they can influence things. Many issues are cross party eg on here dome both from the left and the right have said that they could support the privatisation of the railways. As Patrick said could just be an individual's opinion. Partick wasn't referring to the Cruddas Report - he was referring to the article about the middle-aged, middle-class Corbyn supporter. Who sounds quite an interesting chap, as it happens. It's all about individual opinions, I'll grant you that. Labour's own research into why it lost the election is critically important, however. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 7, 2015 10:46:21 GMT
I may have got the official "rank" wrong. But as always I can spot a working class traitorous Tory a mile off ..Buddy  20 pages before your name calling starts on me. There you go, when proved wrong you revert to type, Quite funny really because thread after thread, one mistake pointed out after another you revert to name calling. Sticks and stones as my my dead socialist father used to say. Calling you a working class Tory is name calling? You did vote conservative again did you not? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 7, 2015 11:38:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 7, 2015 11:58:45 GMT
Without electoral reform the public will never get what it wants. Secondly "the public" are deliberately kept in the dark too much , to be able to make a reasoned decision.Many major issues are viewed as too remote. EG the selling of the RBS shares .Hence a large minority do not vote and do not consider that they can influence things. Many issues are cross party eg on here dome both from the left and the right have said that they could support the privatisation of the railways. As Patrick said could just be an individual's opinion. Partick wasn't referring to the Cruddas Report - he was referring to the article about the middle-aged, middle-class Corbyn supporter. Who sounds quite an interesting chap, as it happens. It's all about individual opinions, I'll grant you that. Labour's own research into why it lost the election is critically important, however. I know he was ... just widening the concept in general. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 7, 2015 13:57:41 GMT
20 pages before your name calling starts on me. There you go, when proved wrong you revert to type, Quite funny really because thread after thread, one mistake pointed out after another you revert to name calling. Sticks and stones as my my dead socialist father used to say. Calling you a working class Tory is name calling? You did vote conservative again did you not? Traitorous  Yep it's always name calling and labels with you |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 7, 2015 19:21:24 GMT
20 pages before your name calling starts on me. There you go, when proved wrong you revert to type, Quite funny really because thread after thread, one mistake pointed out after another you revert to name calling. Sticks and stones as my my dead socialist father used to say. Calling you a working class Tory is name calling? You did vote conservative again did you not? Working class Tory.  ? most Tory voters are working class , |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 19:39:47 GMT
'Understanding' takes a certain amount of intellectual/psychological thought. Perhaps that explains things Huddy ;-) Yes perhaps it does ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 19:40:52 GMT
Calling you a working class Tory is name calling? You did vote conservative again did you not? Working class Tory. ? most Tory voters are working class , Be careful,Harry .....you will upset him .. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 19:41:48 GMT
Calling you a working class Tory is name calling? You did vote conservative again did you not? Traitorous Yep it's always name calling and labels with you Haven't you noticed ...that's what they do ? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 7, 2015 19:43:35 GMT
Working class Tory. ? most Tory voters are working class , Be careful,Harry .....you will upset him .. The maths aren't to difficult Bish . They obviously don't consider disaffected socialists to be Tory |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 7, 2015 19:56:52 GMT
Working class Tory. ? most Tory voters are working class , Be careful,Harry .....you will upset him .. From recent experience it seems to be a lot easier to upset other posters knocking around these parts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 19:57:22 GMT
Be careful,Harry .....you will upset him .. The maths aren't to difficult Bish . They obviously don't consider disaffected socialists to be Tory Is there such a thing as a disaffected Socialist Harry ? ...that can't. be right ....how can you be disaffected with utopia ? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 7, 2015 19:59:54 GMT
The maths aren't to difficult Bish . They obviously don't consider disaffected socialists to be Tory Is there such a thing as a disaffected Socialist Harry ? ...that can't. be right ....how can you be disaffected with utopia ? It's called " when the penny finally dropped " Bish |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 20:00:00 GMT
Be careful,Harry .....you will upset him .. From recent experience it seems to be a lot easier to upset other posters knocking around these parts. Well don't feel that you have achieved something special in this instance .....you haven't ....and don't forget I'm not responding to you either |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 20:01:08 GMT
Is there such a thing as a disaffected Socialist Harry ? ...that can't. be right ....how can you be disaffected with utopia ? It's called " when the penny finally dropped " Bish Wishful thinking ...it never will  |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 7, 2015 20:04:59 GMT
From recent experience it seems to be a lot easier to upset other posters knocking around these parts. Well don't feel that you have achieved something special in this instance .....you haven't ....and don't forget I'm not responding to you either Why on earth would i think that? Really Bisp you should see somebody about those voices. |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Aug 7, 2015 20:06:22 GMT
It's called " when the penny finally dropped " Bish Wishful thinking ...it never will It will do eventually Bish as a clever dude once said you can fool all of the people some of the time etc etc . The voters will suddenly realise that a succession of labour chancellors have been telling us that 2+2 = 5 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 20:09:08 GMT
Well don't feel that you have achieved something special in this instance .....you haven't ....and don't forget I'm not responding to you either Why on earth would i think that? Really Bisp you should see somebody about those voices. And what voices would those be mate ? You need to express yourself a little more clearly .......not that I care of course.  |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 7, 2015 20:11:16 GMT
Wishful thinking ...it never will It will do eventually Bish as a clever dude once said you can fool all of the people some of the time etc etc . The voters will suddenly realise that a succession of labour chancellors have been telling us that 2+2 = 5 Unlike the current Tory chancellor who has done such a wonderful job of balancing the books. Some people you can fool all of the time it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 20:12:29 GMT
Wishful thinking ...it never will It will do eventually Bish as a clever dude once said you can fool all of the people some of the time etc etc . The voters will suddenly realise that a succession of labour chancellors have been telling us that 2+2 = 5 What clever dude was that ? ...not Dennis Healy or Gordon Brown ....I thought not .... |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 7, 2015 20:13:48 GMT
Why on earth would i think that? Really Bisp you should see somebody about those voices. And what voices would those be mate ? You need to express yourself a little more clearly .......not that I care of course. The voices that must be telling you how i think. I know you're of a certain age, they can do tests, catch it early and all that. |
|
? most Tory voters are working class , 
