|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 16, 2015 7:34:59 GMT
I am not sure Labour have anywhere to go.
In my opinion they have permanently lost Scotland to the SNP , will never make inroads in the ,largely, southern strongholds which Mumf refers to, cannot move too far to the left or they will be ridiculed as 'out of touch with reality, a joke, dinosaurs ' and yet need to distinguish themselves from the Tories. Perhaps their only long term hope is tiredness of the electorate with the Tories and simply wanting a change, the Tories cocking something up/being too extreme on austerity or some unforeseeable political event undermining the Tories.
A different stance on Europe might have helped Labour, exploiting the signs of tension between the member states eg Italy and Greece on the quotas for migrants.
Having said that, I think that Liz Kendall might win the leadership , and surprise a few people, if only because she is relatively unknown, is a woman( and thereby having an appeal which Labour has not previously had) and 'seems reasonable'
|
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jun 16, 2015 12:46:21 GMT
If they do fall apart you can only say good riddance. The last Labour government sold the country out and almost got a chance to do it again this summer.
The best form of government seems to be a Conservative leadership with a strong left to keep them in check. That will never be the current lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 19, 2015 10:06:37 GMT
I still can't see Corbyn winning, but his presence has emphasised that Labour really do not know what they stand for, nor what they should stand for.
Rather than believing in definite policies for the PUBLIC'S benefit , they seem more like a business ,floundering for a new product to secure their OWN jobs and business.
At least a Corbyn win would be different from the Tories......I have said previously that he would be unelectable, but if some unforeseeable disaster should befall the Tories, could the electorate actually turn to him , as the only alternative?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick1984 on Jul 22, 2015 7:33:29 GMT
Corbyn will do worse than Miliband, Labour need to move more towards the centre if they want to be relevant again, Blair knew this.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 22, 2015 7:45:39 GMT
Corbyn will do worse than Miliband, Labour need to move more towards the centre if they want to be relevant again, Blair knew this. I know what you mean Nick, but unfortunately they are not doing alot to disrltiguish themselves from the Tories. If they are too far in the middle, may as well leave it to the Tories ( who I realise are actually very right wing, but we haven't woken up to it yet). Blair did win power,but the problem is what he did with it on behalf of the working class. Many have called him a Tory , add to that the war mongering and many on the Left would wish to disown him |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Jul 22, 2015 8:12:34 GMT
Seems to be plenty of right wingers on here giving Labour their advice for them not to choose Corbyn as he would be unelectable and Labour need to go even more right wing if they want to win.
Like any of them would even vote for Labour if Thatcher was raised from the dead and parachuted into the job. If Labour swung so far to the right it set up slave death camps for the unemployed they would still call them "lefties".
Loads repeating the "unelectable" mantra pushed by the media who want Labour to remain exactly as they are, pointless and representing nobody. They are even saying Corbyn would be akin to making Labour like Syriza in Greece as if that's the biggest warning they can give, well they seemed to do OK didn't they and the other bogeyman, The SNP won handsomely on a policy of anti-austerity.
Perhaps it's time to stop pandering to what the establishment want Labour to be and get back to representing real people.
|
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jul 22, 2015 8:21:18 GMT
Corbyn will do worse than Miliband, Labour need to move more towards the centre if they want to be relevant again, Blair knew this. I know what you mean Nick, but unfortunately they are not doing alot to disrltiguish themselves from the Tories. If they are too far in the middle, may as well leave it to the Tories ( who I realise are actually very right wing, but we haven't woken up to it yet). Blair did win power,but the problem is what he did with it on behalf of the working class. Many have called him a Tory , add to that the war mongering and many on the Left would wish to disown him Bliar resurrected the labour party in an incarnation that was centred literally in the middle of politics, he dragged the Labour party out of the dark ages made them a credible party to the electorate, then he fucked it all up dragging us into the Iraq war sucking up to Bush, even worse he handed control to an unelected prime minister in Brown who was not fit for purpose undoing the good work he did initially. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 22, 2015 11:51:52 GMT
Seems to be plenty of right wingers on here giving Labour their advice for them not to choose Corbyn as he would be unelectable and Labour need to go even more right wing if they want to win. Like any of them would even vote for Labour if Thatcher was raised from the dead and parachuted into the job. If Labour swung so far to the right it set up slave death camps for the unemployed they would still call them "lefties". Loads repeating the "unelectable" mantra pushed by the media who want Labour to remain exactly as they are, pointless and representing nobody. They are even saying Corbyn would be akin to making Labour like Syriza in Greece as if that's the biggest warning they can give, well they seemed to do OK didn't they and the other bogeyman, The SNP won handsomely on a policy of anti-austerity. Perhaps it's time to stop pandering to what the establishment want Labour to be and get back to representing real people. Labour need to remember it's recent history specifically why Foot lost and Blair won. May be unpalatable - but that's the reality. |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 22, 2015 12:03:49 GMT
Seems to be plenty of right wingers on here giving Labour their advice for them not to choose Corbyn as he would be unelectable and Labour need to go even more right wing if they want to win. Like any of them would even vote for Labour if Thatcher was raised from the dead and parachuted into the job. If Labour swung so far to the right it set up slave death camps for the unemployed they would still call them "lefties". Loads repeating the "unelectable" mantra pushed by the media who want Labour to remain exactly as they are, pointless and representing nobody. They are even saying Corbyn would be akin to making Labour like Syriza in Greece as if that's the biggest warning they can give, well they seemed to do OK didn't they and the other bogeyman, The SNP won handsomely on a policy of anti-austerity. Perhaps it's time to stop pandering to what the establishment want Labour to be and get back to representing real people. Labour need to remember it's recent history specifically why Foot lost and Blair won. May be unpalatable - but that's the reality. The Tory party will be licking their chops at the thought of Corbyn leading the Labour Party . The argument that labour needs to offer a genuine alternative to the conservatives assumes that the man in the street really gives a toss about politics . Labour clearly haven't got the message , Tory bliar won 3 general elections with a basically centrist set of policies . The voters have had a belly full of socialism . We would all like to see a government pouring loads of cash into local public services , labours problem is they never ask what it will cost till the IMF are banging on the door |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 22, 2015 12:28:25 GMT
I am not sure Labour have anywhere to go. In my opinion they have permanently lost Scotland to the SNP , will never make inroads in the ,largely, southern strongholds which Mumf refers to, cannot move too far to the left or they will be ridiculed as 'out of touch with reality, a joke, dinosaurs ' and yet need to distinguish themselves from the Tories. Perhaps their only long term hope is tiredness of the electorate with the Tories and simply wanting a change, the Tories cocking something up/being too extreme on austerity or some unforeseeable political event undermining the Tories. A different stance on Europe might have helped Labour, exploiting the signs of tension between the member states eg Italy and Greece on the quotas for migrants. Having said that, I think that Liz Kendall might win the leadership , and surprise a few people, if only because she is relatively unknown, is a woman( and thereby having an appeal which Labour has not previously had) and 'seems reasonable' Yes indeed I am almost starting to find Liz Kendall quite fanceeable and you certainly couldn't say the same about Corbyn ???? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 22, 2015 12:34:00 GMT
I am not sure Labour have anywhere to go. In my opinion they have permanently lost Scotland to the SNP , will never make inroads in the ,largely, southern strongholds which Mumf refers to, cannot move too far to the left or they will be ridiculed as 'out of touch with reality, a joke, dinosaurs ' and yet need to distinguish themselves from the Tories. Perhaps their only long term hope is tiredness of the electorate with the Tories and simply wanting a change, the Tories cocking something up/being too extreme on austerity or some unforeseeable political event undermining the Tories. A different stance on Europe might have helped Labour, exploiting the signs of tension between the member states eg Italy and Greece on the quotas for migrants. Having said that, I think that Liz Kendall might win the leadership , and surprise a few people, if only because she is relatively unknown, is a woman( and thereby having an appeal which Labour has not previously had) and 'seems reasonable' Yes indeed I am almost starting to find Liz Kendall quite fanceeable and you certainly couldn't say the same about Corbyn ???? Are you homophobic  |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 22, 2015 13:03:10 GMT
I am not sure Labour have anywhere to go. In my opinion they have permanently lost Scotland to the SNP , will never make inroads in the ,largely, southern strongholds which Mumf refers to, cannot move too far to the left or they will be ridiculed as 'out of touch with reality, a joke, dinosaurs ' and yet need to distinguish themselves from the Tories. Perhaps their only long term hope is tiredness of the electorate with the Tories and simply wanting a change, the Tories cocking something up/being too extreme on austerity or some unforeseeable political event undermining the Tories. A different stance on Europe might have helped Labour, exploiting the signs of tension between the member states eg Italy and Greece on the quotas for migrants. Having said that, I think that Liz Kendall might win the leadership , and surprise a few people, if only because she is relatively unknown, is a woman( and thereby having an appeal which Labour has not previously had) and 'seems reasonable' Yes indeed I am almost starting to find Liz Kendall quite fanceeable and you certainly couldn't say the same about Corbyn ???? I was clearly completely wrong about Kendall. Mind you I think that Burnham seems like a "presentation " man. Having said that my son has met him and says that he seemed genuine and sincere. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Jul 22, 2015 13:26:47 GMT
Seems to be plenty of right wingers on here giving Labour their advice for them not to choose Corbyn as he would be unelectable and Labour need to go even more right wing if they want to win. Like any of them would even vote for Labour if Thatcher was raised from the dead and parachuted into the job. If Labour swung so far to the right it set up slave death camps for the unemployed they would still call them "lefties". Loads repeating the "unelectable" mantra pushed by the media who want Labour to remain exactly as they are, pointless and representing nobody. They are even saying Corbyn would be akin to making Labour like Syriza in Greece as if that's the biggest warning they can give, well they seemed to do OK didn't they and the other bogeyman, The SNP won handsomely on a policy of anti-austerity. Perhaps it's time to stop pandering to what the establishment want Labour to be and get back to representing real people. Syriza is about a bad example as you could find. They came to power on an anti-austerity mandate, rejected a bailout because it was based upon too much austerity, then went against the will of it's people (and many in its own party) to agree to a far worse austerity bailout than originally offered. There are reasons why they caved in, and they are covered elsewhere, but the Greeks are now facing more austerity than they would have faced under a pro-austerity party! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 21:36:46 GMT
I thought it was quite enlightening and exceptional that Tony Blair felt the need to speak out against Corbyn and a vote for the left . Regardless of what you may think of him , it's obviously intended to warn people of the consequences of electing someone who is guaranteed to send the party into oblivion .
I can't think of a worse post war candidate , but all this matters not to the left wing . They are only interested in promoting their extreme views but fail to realise or understand that this will only achieve one thing ....abject failure and years in the wilderness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 22, 2015 22:07:49 GMT
I thought it was quite enlightening and exceptional that Tony Blair felt the need to speak out against Corbyn and a vote for the left . Regardless of what you may think of him , it's obviously intended to warn people of the consequences of electing someone who is guaranteed to send the party into oblivion . I can't think of a worse post war candidate , but all this matters not to the left wing . They are only interested in promoting their extreme views but fail to realise or understand that this will only achieve one thing ....abject failure and years in the wilderness. Majority of voters back these so called "extreme" policies Seems you're the one out of touch comrade. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 22:37:00 GMT
I thought it was quite enlightening and exceptional that Tony Blair felt the need to speak out against Corbyn and a vote for the left . Regardless of what you may think of him , it's obviously intended to warn people of the consequences of electing someone who is guaranteed to send the party into oblivion . I can't think of a worse post war candidate , but all this matters not to the left wing . They are only interested in promoting their extreme views but fail to realise or understand that this will only achieve one thing ....abject failure and years in the wilderness. Majority of voters back these so called "extreme" policies Seems you're the one out of touch comrade. No they don't . This is what newspapers do to sell newspapers . Blair knows how to win elections and Corbyn knows how to fragment the party into a left wing group of no hopers . If this CND clown wins the vote , then that's it for me . The damage he's caused already will take months to repair simply by standing up for election. If you , or anyone else thinks that the British public will vote for him or his policies then you and they need your heads examining . You can write off ten percentage points in one go . Not a chance in hell . |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 22, 2015 23:31:29 GMT
The only reason Milliband is perceived to have been a leftist is because it provided a convenient nickname from the tabloids, the reason being his first name rhymed with red. Certainly nothing to do with policies he spoke about. He never fully opposed the cuts the tories made. He did oppose the bedroom tax after months of dealing with focus groups and think tanks he finally spoke up opposing it and astonishingly...his party went up in the polls. Strange that innit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 6:09:10 GMT
I think some are trying to reinvent the wheel here.
He was the unions choice for his leftist politics.
He opposed the I intervention in Syria.
Corbyn is the same only worse.
Milliband fucked up the election because people hated him.
Corbyn will makean even worse balls up .
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 23, 2015 6:21:02 GMT
I think some are trying to reinvent the wheel here. He was the unions choice for his leftist politics. He opposed the I intervention in Syria. Corbyn is the same only worse. Milliband fucked up the election because people hated him. Corbyn will makean even worse balls up . Do you consider opposing the bombing of Syria to be an act of extremism? |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Jul 23, 2015 6:30:10 GMT
What's the point that of the Labour Party? Is it just to get elected and be Tory Lite, or to provide an opposition with actual principles? I don't care a fig if Labour get elected, but I would like to see them provide a real alternative. Corbyn is the only candidate with a vision.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 23, 2015 6:34:40 GMT
The only reason Milliband is perceived to have been a leftist is because it provided a convenient nickname from the tabloids, the reason being his first name rhymed with red. Certainly nothing to do with policies he spoke about. He never fully opposed the cuts the tories made. He did oppose the bedroom tax after months of dealing with focus groups and think tanks he finally spoke up opposing it and astonishingly...his party went up in the polls. Strange that innit. Milliband failed because of his dithering personality and his lack of clarity . Nothing to do with policy . The electorate didn't trust him on a number of issues but mainly his economic competence |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 23, 2015 6:36:21 GMT
The only reason Milliband is perceived to have been a leftist is because it provided a convenient nickname from the tabloids, the reason being his first name rhymed with red. Certainly nothing to do with policies he spoke about. He never fully opposed the cuts the tories made. He did oppose the bedroom tax after months of dealing with focus groups and think tanks he finally spoke up opposing it and astonishingly...his party went up in the polls. Strange that innit. Milliband failed because of his dithering personality and his lack of clarity . Nothing to do with policy . The electorate didn't trust him on a number of issues but mainly his economic competence Do you think with a different leader the UK would now have a Labour government? |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 23, 2015 6:36:36 GMT
What's the point that of the Labour Party? Is it just to get elected and be Tory Lite, or to provide an opposition with actual principles? I don't care a fig if Labour get elected, but I would like to see them provide a real alternative. Corbyn is the only candidate with a vision. The SDP s time has finally arrived 30 years too late |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 23, 2015 6:43:02 GMT
Milliband failed because of his dithering personality and his lack of clarity . Nothing to do with policy . The electorate didn't trust him on a number of issues but mainly his economic competence Do you think with a different leader the UK would now have a Labour government? Probably joe but the collapse of their Scottish vote was a major factor . As I've said before people are tired of the old left / right ideology it's mainly about credible policies and leadership |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 6:44:06 GMT
I think some are trying to reinvent the wheel here. He was the unions choice for his leftist politics. He opposed the I intervention in Syria. Corbyn is the same only worse. Milliband fucked up the election because people hated him. Corbyn will makean even worse balls up . Do you consider opposing the bombing of Syria to be an act of extremism? No . I think its called bombing extremists . |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 23, 2015 6:44:25 GMT
The thing is now with saturation media and complacency if a party (any party) debates something and has a disagreement it's regarded as a big problem and a big mark against them when in actual fact it's just democracy in action.
Party conferences used to be where things are debated because it was the one time a year everyone was together. From that point policy was developed. Now they are just media wankfests with a million tweets a second discussing a sideways glance.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 23, 2015 6:49:58 GMT
Do you think with a different leader the UK would now have a Labour government? Probably joe but the collapse of their Scottish vote was a major factor . As I've said before people are tired of the old left / right ideology it's mainly about credible policies and leadership It was considered before the referendum that Labour needed Scotland to stay to keep their seats. Then it turned out Scottish seats have rarely been the determining factor in an election. Surely that would change in 2015. NO. If labour had kept all the seats the tories would still have won. By less but they would still have a working majority. But the collapse of the Scottish vote was a huge blow. Their are lessons to be learnt too. People shouldn't fall into the predictable lazy trap of thinking it was all about patriotism. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 6:50:22 GMT
The only reason Milliband is perceived to have been a leftist is because it provided a convenient nickname from the tabloids, the reason being his first name rhymed with red. Certainly nothing to do with policies he spoke about. He never fully opposed the cuts the tories made. He did oppose the bedroom tax after months of dealing with focus groups and think tanks he finally spoke up opposing it and astonishingly...his party went up in the polls. Strange that innit. Milliband failed because of his dithering personality and his lack of clarity . Nothing to do with policy . The electorate didn't trust him on a number of issues but mainly his economic competence It was to do with policy . To base your whole campaign on the state of the national health service was a bad idea especially after Labours record on the economy. He did suffer from a lack of clarity though I'll agree. Sadly , he was always going to lose . Corbyn is 5 times more guaranteed to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 23, 2015 6:52:08 GMT
Do you consider opposing the bombing of Syria to be an act of extremism? No . I think its called bombing extremists . Or it could be called killing lots of civilians who have nothing to do with extremism and are just living their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 6:57:02 GMT
No . I think its called bombing extremists . Or it could be called killing lots of civilians who have nothing to do with extremism and are just living their lives. So do you think hes helped save lives or allowed another 50,000 die unnecessarily .? IS is now a much greater entity . In war civilians do die . |
|
