Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Ubik said:
That is one pretty big change in the makeup of the membership.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit obvious that who joined whilst Corbyn was leader are more likely to vote for him? I mean they joined because they liked what they were hearing or what he isnt.

I doubt all those in the 57% would vote for Angela either to be fair.

Its a shame that there isnt a decent leader within the party that can energise both sides. I mean one side just wants a decent leader and the other wants the party to stick to its traditional values and actually be proud to represent these. It shouldnt be that hard
 
sun_tzu said:
Im voting corbyn as I want the party to split so we can bin the union leftys and form a party that at least has a chance moving forwards
Click to expand...

You want rid of the unions?

If you're genuinely going to vote Corbyn to separate the party rather than back your candidate then thats ridiculous and shows perhaps you dislike him more than you care about electability.

If there's a lot of Labour voters put off by Corbyn then why can't they join en mass and get rid of him? The party can't just take it on faith that thats the direction they should go when these people cant be bothered to vote in the leadership election.
 
Smores said:
Isn't it a bit obvious that who joined whilst Corbyn was leader are more likely to vote for him? I mean they joined because they liked what they were hearing or what he isnt.

I doubt all those in the 57% would vote for Angela either to be fair.

Its a shame that there isnt a decent leader within the party that can energise both sides. I mean one side just wants a decent leader and the other wants the party to stick to its traditional values and actually be proud to represent these. It shouldnt be that hard
Click to expand...
Was referring also to the ratio of the membership that were pre- and post-2015 election.
 
On the subject of the possible death of the party, I find it hard to have sympathy for the more moderate side of the party with their arguments that they have to present an opposition to a Tory majority when they've had ample chances to introduce, or influence, a move to PR or a different form of voting which would've helped stop Tory majorities.

Blair/Brown were in power for 13 years, and won three elections. Scotland and Wales were given devolution with different voting systems (mainly to stop nationalists gaining majorities), and yet neither made a move towards a new PR system for UK elections. Doing so would've probably stopped any future majorities, and could've even allowed any eventual split within the party to occur more amicably, with the knowledge that the two forces could work together on coalition bases if that was required. They didn't though...because they were presumably more concerned with keeping power for themselves than denying it to the Tories.

Even after that, Labour could've fully committed to supporting AV in the referendum a few years back...which would've perhaps helped slightly, even if it wasn't an effective as PR, in denying Tory majorities. Again though...they didn't. Another chance to deny future Tory majorities blown.

Due to that I find it quite difficult to sympathise or empathise with the admittedly understandable concerns. I get that a lot of people here just genuinely want a credible alternative to the Tories, but the parties actions since the Blair era don't indicate that...it indicates a party who were more concerned with power for themselves than preventing the Tories from gaining power. That short-sightedness, and a lack of foresight from anyone within the party that future divisions or potential Tory dominance could be costly, has harmed them greatly. And only the party can be blamed for that. They had their chance, and they blew it.
 
Cheesy said:
On the subject of the possible death of the party, I find it hard to have sympathy for the more moderate side of the party with their arguments that they have to present an opposition to a Tory majority when they've had ample chances to introduce, or influence, a move to PR or a different form of voting which would've helped stop Tory majorities.

Blair/Brown were in power for 13 years, and won three elections. Scotland and Wales were given devolution with different voting systems (mainly to stop nationalists gaining majorities), and yet neither made a move towards a new PR system for UK elections. Doing so would've probably stopped any future majorities, and could've even allowed any eventual split within the party to occur more amicably, with the knowledge that the two forces could work together on coalition bases if that was required. They didn't though...because they were presumably more concerned with keeping power for themselves than denying it to the Tories.

Even after that, Labour could've fully committed to supporting AV in the referendum a few years back...which would've perhaps helped slightly, even if it wasn't an effective as PR, in denying Tory majorities. Again though...they didn't. Another chance to deny future Tory majorities blown.

Due to that I find it quite difficult to sympathise or empathise with the admittedly understandable concerns. I get that a lot of people here just genuinely want a credible alternative to the Tories, but the parties actions since the Blair era don't indicate that...it indicates a party who were more concerned with power for themselves than preventing the Tories from gaining power. That short-sightedness, and a lack of foresight from anyone within the party that future divisions or potential Tory dominance could be costly, has harmed them greatly. And only the party can be blamed for that. They had their chance, and they blew it.
Click to expand...
They did, Ed was a firm campaigner for it.
 
Ubik said:
They did, Ed was a firm campaigner for it.
Click to expand...

Ed did, but the party as a whole was firmly divided on the issue. To say Labour fully committed to AV would be like saying the Tories committed to remaining within the EU because Cameron supported it...although perhaps less extreme.

And anyway, that doesn't negate the rest of my point...that the most effective way for Labour to deny future Tory majorities and ensure any splits within their own party weren't disastrous would have been through supporting a non-FPTP system, preferably a form of PR but also through AV. They conveniently dodged it for 13 years though, and many were still against the potential AV reforms, presumably intending to regain power in 2015 instead. A horrendous lack of foresight either way from the party, and one which will be costly for them. Kind of like how a lot of the brooding issues in Scotland were ignored and eventually came back to bite the party.
 
Cheesy said:
Ed did, but the party as a whole was firmly divided on the issue. To say Labour fully committed to AV would be like saying the Tories committed to remaining within the EU because Cameron supported it...although perhaps less extreme.

And anyway, that doesn't negate the rest of my point...that the most effective way for Labour to deny future Tory majorities and ensure any splits within their own party weren't disastrous would have been through supporting a non-FPTP system, preferably a form of PR but also through AV. They conveniently dodged it for 13 years though, and many were still against the potential AV reforms, presumably intending to regain power in 2015 instead. A horrendous lack of foresight either way from the party, and one which will be costly for them. Kind of like how a lot of the brooding issues in Scotland were ignored and eventually came back to bite the party.
Click to expand...
This is true, but I still don't really think you can put the much of the failure to win the AV vote down to that, the vote was lost by 35%, it wasn't a popular change. I think a referendum on PR would go the same way, to be honest. You might even get more of a backlash to it now among leftwing folk that are concerned about UKIP becoming a (junior) governing party.

Wanting to govern alone rather than in coalition can be portrayed as being power-hungry and dismissive of cooperation, but by the same token it can also be seen as wanting to have your own manifesto that you don't have to barter away in post-election deals. Which can itself lead to complete gridlock - see the last couple of Spanish elections. It's a complicated issue all round, and one most people in the country don't really care much about.
 
Angela Eagle pulls out. That's some good news at least

porridge.. PORRIDGE...recording....:nervous:

Best start to a resignation speech ever :lol:
 
Last edited:
Personally I quite like Corbyn, on the grounds that he doesnt seem to be the typical self-serving politician that has arisen over the last few decades. Also thought that Eagle seemed absolutely awful whenever I heard her, so not surprised she has withdrawn.
 
Well, at least it won't continue the trend of women finishing bottom of every Labour leadership election.
 
"Angela Eagle Porridge for Breakfast", how could Labour not win with a party slogan like that
 
This is stupid. Smith is a worse candidate than Burnham or Cooper. After 10 months of plotting this is what we get.
 
Untied said:
This is stupid. Smith is a worse candidate than Burnham or Cooper. After 10 months of plotting this is what we get.
Click to expand...
It is weird. I wasn't fond of either Burnham or Cooper, but would have both over Smith. Preferably Cooper tbh, as I think Burnham is slightly dense.
 
So what happens when Corbyn wins this vote, as he surely will?
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The field gets awfully narrow if we take out Iraq War supporters. And it's already a terrible field of potential candidates.
Click to expand...
Not really, most of the people that declared no confidence didn't vote for Iraq.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Who do you think are the best of them? Because I think they're all pretty average.
Click to expand...
It's an easy generalisation to make, but I'm not sure it's true. People would've said the same about a month ago, and I'm not sure anyone would agree now that Jo Cox was average. Who, incidentally, would I think have made an incredible leader in a few years time. These kind of people do exist within the PLP, unfortunately at the moment there's little chance for them to make an impact without getting involved with the internecine warfare.
 
Ubik said:
It's an easy generalisation to make, but I'm not sure it's true. People would've said the same about a month ago, and I'm not sure anyone would agree now that Jo Cox was average. Who, incidentally, would I think have made an incredible leader in a few years time. These kind of people do exist within the PLP, unfortunately at the moment there's little chance for them to make an impact without getting involved with the internecine warfare.
Click to expand...
Well, in fairness, Jo Cox was an MP for only a year. She was very good, but we didn't have long to figure out how good. I agree with you on the war in the party, it isn't doing anyone any good. I think the split should just happen already.
 

"Austerity is right" becomes "I'm anti-austerity"
"I'm normal" becomes "I'm radical"

Just what will he think next? Find out tomorrow when "These Are My Principles. But If You Don't Like Them I Have Others" returns.
 
Last edited:
Angela_Eagle_has_withdrawn_from_the_Labour_leadership_race_leaving_Owe-large_trans++X9BUfzDCvOjQOugpI-mZsKuShJTBQYGZySLXm6tuAbU.jpg



Love the look on their faces.
 
sun_tzu said:
More than half his MP's form a new party and become the official opposition
Click to expand...

The Labour Party have become my fav soap opera so it's good to know there will be at least a few more episodes although I think I'd rather have Comrade Corbyn hang on and on and on...
 
Ubik said:
This is true, but I still don't really think you can put the much of the failure to win the AV vote down to that, the vote was lost by 35%, it wasn't a popular change. I think a referendum on PR would go the same way, to be honest. You might even get more of a backlash to it now among leftwing folk that are concerned about UKIP becoming a (junior) governing party.

Wanting to govern alone rather than in coalition can be portrayed as being power-hungry and dismissive of cooperation, but by the same token it can also be seen as wanting to have your own manifesto that you don't have to barter away in post-election deals. Which can itself lead to complete gridlock - see the last couple of Spanish elections. It's a complicated issue all round, and one most people in the country don't really care much about.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, although many early polls were actually quite favourable to AV. Having one of the big two fully, unanimously backing it would've been very helpful. And besides, it'd have been a more credible campaign had it been for PR in some form...and Labour have always been very tentative when it came to that.

Irrespective of the complications or interest though, I still think the central point remains the same...that the moderate side of Labour had ample amount of time to ensure that we wouldn't see majority rule from a Tory government, and that the impact of any future split/division (which was arguably inevitable in a party with such differences of opinion) would be mitigated due to being able to work together in a PR system.
 
Hmmm... AV... Adult Video??
Honest John said:
So if someone nukes us, they should not face any retribution?

By this logic we should (a) not have nuclear weapons and (b) be subservient to anyone that does have them.

So South Korea, for instance, should just grin and bear the fact that North Korea has nukes and could annihilate them at any time should they so choose.
Click to expand...
Trident is a WMD designed to perform a barbaric revenge attack on innocent civilians for somethng their insane leadership did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.