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

[RedChip]

It's not but the question is how do you decide? The Labour party is set up to allow the members to have a huge say in the party's direction and I don't think people are voting Corbyn because they think he will benefit them personally.

Well, people who voted for Labour in the GE have a right to be represented. Labour has a duty to represent them.

And, I totally disagree with you on your last point. People voting for Corbyn do personally benefit from it. Sure, they don't receive a payment for it; but they share his views and it is them he speaks for. I just think as party leader it is his duty to speak for other Labour voters too. I do not think he thinks it is, though, which is why many think he is an incompetent leader. One would imagine an important aspect of being a party leader is to represent all your supporters as much as you can; not just your most loyal supporters.

 

[sun_tzu]

Well, people who voted for Labour in the GE have a right to be represented. Labour has a duty to represent them.

.

That's what the MP's were doing with the vote of no confidence in Corbyn... Outside his core party support he is a joke

 

[Shamwow]

Well, people who voted for Labour in the GE have a right to be represented. Labour has a duty to represent them.

I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. How do you know what policies "represent the people"?

I think Corbyn does try to represent the people. If you don't feel represented by that then you need to care enough to have a say I guess.

 

[Shamwow]

Why wasn't he thrown out? Because his prime job was legislating as a representative of his constituents, not a delegate on the behalf of the Labour membership. He was in one of the safest Labour seats and with no threat of deselection, hence why he could continually vote against Labour without consequence. That's how our democracy works.

He also advocated the removal of multiple Labour leaders with larger "mandates" than he himself won. He was campaign manager of Tony Benn's attempt to oust Kinnock in '88 (which failed miserably, Kinnock won 89% of the vote). He is one of the most disloyal members of parliament in decades and thus his demand today for unity in the event of him winning again in September can only be viewed as a pisstake.

He's being treated as he treated others for decades and now cries foul. He deserves contempt.

There was also a nice clip of him from back in the 80s on Newsnight earlier, speaking after Benn's defeat in the '81 Deputy Leadership race, saying left-leaning MPs that abstained should expect "some discomfort from the rank and file in their own constituencies". Ah, good old intimidation, never gets old.

You make the same mistake as many and think this is all about Corbyn. It's the membership who voted for him. They feel shat on by those who didn't try hard enough to make it work.

 

[Smores]

Well, people who voted for Labour in the GE have a right to be represented. Labour has a duty to represent them.

And, I totally disagree with you on your last point. People voting for Corbyn do personally benefit from it. Sure, they don't receive a payment for it; but they share his views and it is them he speaks for. I just think as party leader it is his duty to speak for other Labour voters too. I do not think he thinks it is, though, which is why many think he is an incompetent leader. One would imagine an important aspect of being a party leader is to represent all your supporters as much as you can; not just your most loyal supporters.

You seem to be complaining that politicians can't guess your needs and they should because you cant be bothered to make them known.

You want representation go talk to your MP, become a member, attend local meetings. All these and more avenues are open to you with little effort needed to be expended.

I voted Corbyn and i dont directly benefit from any of his policies, im down south in a tory heartland and im in the higher tax bracket. I voted him in because of his focus to speak for those who need representing, not for those who cant be arsed.

 

[RedChip]

You seem to be complaining that politicians can't guess your needs and they should because you cant be bothered to make them known.

You want representation go talk to your MP, become a member, attend local meetings. All these and more avenues are open to you with little effort needed to be expended.

I voted Corbyn and i dont directly benefit from any of his policies, im down south in a tory heartland and im in the higher tax bracket. I voted him in because of his focus to speak for those who need representing, not for those who cant be arsed.

So you are basically saying what i said, i.e. only those who are bothered enough to join a political party will be represented. Whereas I thought the whole parliamentary Democracy system is based on the electorate being represented by those they elect? Is that not how it works any more?

It seems you are now suggesting a large segment of those 9 million people who voted for Labour are lazy fools who shouldn't expect representation. If they want representation they should sign up and vote in the Labour leadership election?

For the record, I too live in the South, in an area where we haven't had a labour MP since the 90s. And, as a matter of fact I do contact my MP about issues that matter to me, even if she is a Tory.

 

[sun_tzu]

You want representation go talk to your MP, .

You see all the MP's who voted against corbyn say this is exactly what they did with their constituency surgery's (when they can hold them without the police telling them its not safe because they disagreed with Corbyn)

Anyway they say the overwhelming response coming back from people is that they wont vote labour with corbyn in charge so rather than listen to the under 1% of the population who are in the labour party they are indeed taking representation from across the spectrum of labour members, labour voters and potential labour voters.

 

[RedChip]

I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. How do you know what policies "represent the people"?

I think Corbyn does try to represent the people. If you don't feel represented by that then you need to care enough to have a say I guess.

I cared enough to vote. Obviously, by the way you and @Smores are responding that is not enough for the current Labour movement. Rather, I am getting a whiff of the superior, high and mighty: you don't care enough; get off your arse, join the party and vote for a leader of your choice...

 

[Sweet Square]

75% of people don't know their local MP(I think it's around 80% for Labour). Let's stop this idea that people vote for their MP for anything other than the Party they represent.

 

[sun_tzu]

75% of people don't know their local MP(I think it's around 80% for Labour). Let's stop this idea that people vote for their MP for anything other than the Party they represent.

lets also apply a bit of reasoning to stats as well then
http://revolts.co.uk/?p=866

Spoiler

Almost 70% of people know the name of their MP, according to the British Election Study…
What percentage of people know the name of their MP? One recent survey by the Hansard society found the figure was down as low as 22%.

That was the lowest figure in the ten years Hansard’s Audit of Political Engagement surveys had been asked. But even at its highest, the figure had only been 44%.

As someone who is absolutely hopeless at remembering names, I’ve always been a bit sceptical about the validity of the question. As part of a paper I’m writing with Rosie Campbell, we’ve looked at the first wave of the current British Election Study, where a similar question is asked – but in a different way.

The BES asked their respondents: ‘which of the following people is the MP in your parliamentary constituency’? They presented respondents with five fake names (‘Mary Davies’, ‘Susan Stewart’, etc) along with the correct MP for that respondent . All six names were presented in a randomised order. Plus, there was also a Don’t Know and an Other option.


Rather than producing a correct figure down in the 20s or even 40s, some 68% of respondents now got the answer right. Of course, with multiple choice questions like this, there will be some guessing going on – but the relatively low numbers plumping for each of the wrong options suggests this was not a major problem. Each of the five fake answers attracted fewer than 1% of respondents each, along with 2% who wrote in what they thought was the right answer, and a nice solid 27% who just admitted they did not know.


And, of course, multiple choice questions are easier to work out (as all TV quiz programmes show). But still, they are only easier to work out if you have some basic knowledge to begin with. A potentially more serious problem is that this question, like the rest of the survey, was asked online – and so people could have cheated, by looking up the correct option. Astonishingly, this does go on… But still, even allowing for some guessing and some cheating, I suspect this shows that background knowledge of MPs is higher than the ‘standard’ question reveals. There are a sizeable chunk of people who do know the right answer, but are just rubbish at remembering names

 

[Shamwow]

I cared enough to vote. Obviously, by the way you and @Smores are responding that is not enough for the current Labour movement. Rather, I am getting a whiff of the superior, high and mighty: you don't care enough; get off your arse, join the party and vote for a leader of your choice...

You're the one whose been getting high and mighty my friend. All I've done is try and explain why we think that choosing Corbyn doesn't clash with representing the people in our minds. You've been having a go at me for it, apparently my opinions aren't good enough for you.

And it's simply a statement of fact that if you don't agree then the best thing to do is get more involved.

I don't see why I should have to vote for what you think is best if you wont even tell me what that is.

 

[Smores]

So you are basically saying what i said, i.e. only those who are bothered enough to join a political party will be represented. Whereas I thought the whole parliamentary Democracy system is based on the electorate being represented by those they elect? Is that not how it works any more?

It seems you are now suggesting a large segment of those 9 million people who voted for Labour are lazy fools who shouldn't expect representation. If they want representation they should sign up and vote in the Labour leadership election?

For the record, I too live in the South, in an area where we haven't had a labour MP since the 90s. And, as a matter of fact I do contact my MP about issues that matter to me, even if she is a Tory.

Well then good that's your voice listened to and your MP should be representing you, the fact theyre a tory is irrelevant thats your local representation. The representation doesnt just end with a single vote though so whilst you are engaging with them the majority dont and they have no right to complain. Essentially you're asking for representation by way of polling which is just a dreadful idea because its a one way conversation and therefore includes those whose views are formed off the back of the tabloids agenda.

If they want their voice heard in who the Labour leader is then yeah they should be in a union, a member or pay the supporter fee. Okay its £25 now which is an unnecessary barrier but it was only £3 last time round.

And its not elitist or high and mighty to suggest those wanting a voice should speak up. The alternative of shunning the politically engaged membership for the opinions of the unengaged just doesnt make any sense. The answer to what Labour stands for shouldn't be whatever the latest poll says.

I just dont understand why you wouldnt join and then complain. You didnt get a Labour MP you got a Tory, so your path to representation into the party is by being a member or engaging with a Labour MP in your wider area.

 

[Kaos]

75% of people don't know their local MP(I think it's around 80% for Labour). Let's stop this idea that people vote for their MP for anything other than the Party they represent.

Nonsense. MEPs and local councillors maybe but most certainly do know their MP.

 

[Marching]

Why wasn't he thrown out? Because his prime job was legislating as a representative of his constituents, not a delegate on the behalf of the Labour membership. He was in one of the safest Labour seats and with no threat of deselection, hence why he could continually vote against Labour without consequence. That's how our democracy works.

He also advocated the removal of multiple Labour leaders with larger "mandates" than he himself won. He was campaign manager of Tony Benn's attempt to oust Kinnock in '88 (which failed miserably, Kinnock won 89% of the vote). He is one of the most disloyal members of parliament in decades and thus his demand today for unity in the event of him winning again in September can only be viewed as a pisstake.

He's being treated as he treated others for decades and now cries foul. He deserves contempt.

There was also a nice clip of him from back in the 80s on Newsnight earlier, speaking after Benn's defeat in the '81 Deputy Leadership race, saying left-leaning MPs that abstained should expect "some discomfort from the rank and file in their own constituencies". Ah, good old intimidation, never gets old.

Good points.

 

[Ubik]

I cared enough to vote. Obviously, by the way you and @Smores are responding that is not enough for the current Labour movement. Rather, I am getting a whiff of the superior, high and mighty: you don't care enough; get off your arse, join the party and vote for a leader of your choice...

It kind of goes to the heart of everything the party is suffering at the moment - is winning general elections even a goal anymore? Do we want to get into power and actually make a difference, or is this just about turning the party into a vehicle that the members can be happy with that perpetually protests what the government are doing? The idea that we disregard the views of the vast majority of the Labour vote (!!!), let alone the wider vote that needs to be won over in order to get into office, just because they aren't members is so galling.

 

[Dobba]

That's what the MP's were doing with the vote of no confidence in Corbyn... Outside his core party support he is a joke

Another example of superiority, MPs can have votes of no confidence but feck is the NEC going to allow CLPs meeting and doing the same with the MPs themselves.

Know your place, you trot peasants!

 

[Shamwow]

It kind of goes to the heart of everything the party is suffering at the moment - is winning general elections even a goal anymore? Do we want to get into power and actually make a difference, or is this just about turning the party into a vehicle that the members can be happy with that perpetually protests what the government are doing? The idea that we disregard the views of the vast majority of the Labour vote (!!!), let alone the wider vote that needs to be won over in order to get into office, just because they aren't members is so galling.

This is a massive misrepresentation of what people actually think but that doesn't surprise me any more.

 

[Fearless]

the contempt needs to reserved for those who voted for an illegal war that killed hundereds of thousands and wanted to cover it up.

the contempt needs to be reserved for those who propagate lies, that people buy into like that woman above and end up hurting thermselves and their families.

Corbyn is an honourable man.

Corbyn opposed international action against Saddam Hussein in 1990 and Slobodan Milošević in Kosovo in 1998.

At least he's consistent though.

 

[Smores]

It kind of goes to the heart of everything the party is suffering at the moment - is winning general elections even a goal anymore? Do we want to get into power and actually make a difference, or is this just about turning the party into a vehicle that the members can be happy with that perpetually protests what the government are doing? The idea that we disregard the views of the vast majority of the Labour vote (!!!), let alone the wider vote that needs to be won over in order to get into office, just because they aren't members is so galling.

Your first point is just the same rhetoric we keep hearing from the PLP. You can have a strong member movement and be more than a protest group. Top down strategy from party donors isnt the only way to power.

No one said we should disregard their views there's a huge difference between saying they should engage if they want to help make key decisions and diaregarding them entirely.

Secondly the labour vote isnt a set group anymore its whoever will vote for you next time around, its fluid. You can't ignore your members to appoint a leader because of people who may be more likely to now vote UKIP anyway. Its galling when people would rather the Labour leader talk down immigrants/junior doctors as it might appease some on the right.

 

[RedChip]

It kind of goes to the heart of everything the party is suffering at the moment - is winning general elections even a goal anymore? Do we want to get into power and actually make a difference, or is this just about turning the party into a vehicle that the members can be happy with that perpetually protests what the government are doing? The idea that we disregard the views of the vast majority of the Labour vote (!!!), let alone the wider vote that needs to be won over in order to get into office, just because they aren't members is so galling.

Indeed. Winning an election would mean compromising a little bit in order to command a wider following. It seems Corbynites are not prepared to do that. They would rather be ideologically pure than influence people's lives in a significant way. When it is suggested that Labour is not an effective opposition currently, Mr Corbyn's supporters list the few things they have managed to stop the Tories doing. They don't seems to appreciate that they could do so much more in power.

 

[Ubik]

Your first point is just the same rhetoric we keep hearing from the PLP. You can have a strong member movement and be more than a protest group. Top down strategy from party donors isnt the only way to power.

No one said we should disregard their views there's a huge difference between saying they should engage if they want to help make key decisions and diaregarding them entirely.

Secondly the labour vote isnt a set group anymore its whoever will vote for you next time around, its fluid. You can't ignore your members to appoint a leader because of people who may be more likely to now vote UKIP anyway. Its galling when people would rather the Labour leader talk down immigrants/junior doctors as it might appease some on the right.

You can, but what we currently see is not close to being it. The reason it's a protest group is, firstly, because it's lead by someone who has made a steady career out of protesting and it's all he's really good at, and secondly, because it dismisses the idea that the party's agenda should be formed by taking into account the hopes and concerns of the broader electorate. Because they might read tabloids, presumably. It's paternalistic, thinking this narrow band of the electorate within the membership can form a platform without actually listening to those people that aren't as politically engaged. And you clearly are suggesting we don't listen to them, because you say we can't know what they think without looking at polling (even though there are a number of other ways to do so).

 

[Shamwow]

You can, but what we currently see is not close to being it. The reason it's a protest group is, firstly, because it's lead by someone who has made a steady career out of protesting and it's all he's really good at, and secondly, because it dismisses the idea that the party's agenda should be formed by taking into account the hopes and concerns of the broader electorate. Because they might read tabloids, presumably. It's paternalistic, thinking this narrow band of the electorate within the membership can form a platform without actually listening to those people that aren't as politically engaged. And you clearly are suggesting we don't listen to them, because you say we can't know what they think without looking at polling (even though there are a number of other ways to do so).

We do listen to what people have to say, I think it's very unfair to imply that Corbyn supporters don't give a crap about the wider population.

 

[Smores]

You can, but what we currently see is not close to being it. The reason it's a protest group is, firstly, because it's lead by someone who has made a steady career out of protesting and it's all he's really good at, and secondly, because it dismisses the idea that the party's agenda should be formed by taking into account the hopes and concerns of the broader electorate. Because they might read tabloids, presumably. It's paternalistic, thinking this narrow band of the electorate within the membership can form a platform without actually listening to those people that aren't as politically engaged. And you clearly are suggesting we don't listen to them, because you say we can't know what they think without looking at polling (even though there are a number of other ways to do so).

I meant polling as in the generic sense of canvassing views whether thats quantitative polling or door to door.

You obviously have to reach out regarding policy, my point was targetted at the poster who felt this should be the case with the election and who felt slighted his preference wasnt represented as he didnt want to become a member. Quite simply tough, members fund the party and its not a closed membership so join.
I think generally the members and party should decide direction and then find a way to win over the electorate within those boundaries. As the tories con the working classes into voting them without changing direction, the left need to do the same.

Bar Corbyns history this leadership is no more a protest group then Millibands "Let Ed be Ed" years. Im also not sure that Corbyn hasnt reached out but i find that hard to prove either way, he's been vocal about members being involved in policy but that doesn't exclude general strategy to win over the electorate.

If Smith comes in and provides better leadership and more of a mainstream voice but sticks to Corbyns (Millibands) policies will people still be calling it hard lefty and insular? Or will him being more palatable mean he's centrist suddenly?

 

[Shamwow]

I was seriously thinking of voting Smith but I don't think I can now as over the last few days to me he just looks like someone who will say anything to win votes.

 

[Smores]

I was seriously thinking of voting Smith but I don't think I can now as over the last few days to me he just looks like someone who will say anything to win votes.

Ill be voting Smith as he at least offers a route forward at this point. Even if he wins the conversation isnt over as the left within the party are increasingly empowered to hold him to account.

 

[Shamwow]

Ill be voting Smith as he at least offers a route forward at this point. Even if he wins the conversation isnt over as the left within the party are increasingly empowered to hold him to account.

It sounds more like you've been worn down by the situation than actually support Smith. I think that's part of the strategy personally.

Smith wants to offer a 2nd referendum on any Brexit deal. I think this is a cynical ploy to gain votes, and one that is potentially very dangerous. It will ruin our ability to negotiate and put more power in the hands of the tabloid newspapers to define the future direction of the country.

He said he will offer Corbyn a "president" post. A meaningless position that doesn't even exist. Again a cynical ploy to win votes.

And today he has really shown his true colours by turning on Corbyn's support, which has really disappointed me.

Another thing he said, apparently there was no anti-semitism in the Labour party before Corbyn was leader and it's all Corbyn's fault. Easily prove to be a lie.

Add to that the fact that we know he's been planning to run for leader in the background for at least 6 months, whilst saying publicly that he will strongly support Corbyn.

I don't trust him at all personally.

 

[RedChip]

Well then good that's your voice listened to and your MP should be representing you, the fact theyre a tory is irrelevant thats your local representation. The representation doesnt just end with a single vote though so whilst you are engaging with them the majority dont and they have no right to complain. Essentially you're asking for representation by way of polling which is just a dreadful idea because its a one way conversation and therefore includes those whose views are formed off the back of the tabloids agenda.

If they want their voice heard in who the Labour leader is then yeah they should be in a union, a member or pay the supporter fee. Okay its £25 now which is an unnecessary barrier but it was only £3 last time round.

And its not elitist or high and mighty to suggest those wanting a voice should speak up. The alternative of shunning the politically engaged membership for the opinions of the unengaged just doesnt make any sense. The answer to what Labour stands for shouldn't be whatever the latest poll says.

I just dont understand why you wouldnt join and then complain. You didnt get a Labour MP you got a Tory, so your path to representation into the party is by being a member or engaging with a Labour MP in your wider area.

Not really. I didn't vote for Labour candidates all my adult life on a whim. Since this a Utd forum, I will use United as a parallel. Do you think only those who hold shares in United and season ticket holders have a right to complain when they think the senior management at United is leading them into oblivion?

 

[Shamwow]

Not really. I didn't vote for Labour candidates all my adult life on a whim. Since this a Utd forum, I will use United as a parallel. Do you think only those who hold shares in United and season ticket holders have a right to complain when they think the senior management at United is leading them into oblivion?

You have a right to complain but you do not have a right to call people like me smug simply for holding a different view to you and putting in more effort to implement our view. Well technically you do have a right but I don't have to like it.

 

[sun_tzu]

I meant polling as in the generic sense of canvassing views whether thats quantitative polling or door to door.

You obviously have to reach out regarding policy, my point was targetted at the poster who felt this should be the case with the election and who felt slighted his preference wasnt represented as he didnt want to become a member. Quite simply tough, members fund the party and its not a closed membership so join.
I think generally the members and party should decide direction and then find a way to win over the electorate within those boundaries. As the tories con the working classes into voting them without changing direction, the left need to do the same.

Bar Corbyns history this leadership is no more a protest group then Millibands "Let Ed be Ed" years. Im also not sure that Corbyn hasnt reached out but i find that hard to prove either way, he's been vocal about members being involved in policy but that doesn't exclude general strategy to win over the electorate.

If Smith comes in and provides better leadership and more of a mainstream voice but sticks to Corbyns (Millibands) policies will people still be calling it hard lefty and insular? Or will him being more palatable mean he's centrist suddenly?

Anybody bar Corbyn, Mcdonnel or Abbot would be branded a Blairite*

With 2 exceptions
Skinner because he is just the beast of Bolsover and thats that
Burgdon would be branded a fool (because he is)

But centrist would probably be a better description than Blairite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blairism

Politically, Blair has been identified with record investment into public services, an interventionist and Atlanticist foreign policy, support for stronger law enforcement powers, a large focus on surveillance as a means to address terrorism and a large focus on education as a means to encourage social mobility. In the early years (circa 1994–1997), Blairism was also associated with support forEuropean integration and particularly British participation in the European single currency, though this waned after Labour took office.

The term is used in particular in contrast to Brownite, to identify those within the Labour Party with a connection to, or identification with, Gordon Brown rather than Blair. However, with Blair and Brown typically in agreement on most political issues[2] (from Iraq topublic sector reform), commentators have noted that "the difference between Brownites and Blairites … is more tribal than ideological".[3]

 

[Sweet Square]

Nonsense. MEPs and local councillors maybe but most certainly do know their MP.

A few years old but http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22555659

 

[Smores]

Not really. I didn't vote for Labour candidates all my adult life on a whim. Since this a Utd forum, I will use United as a parallel. Do you think only those who hold shares in United and season ticket holders have a right to complain when they think the senior management at United is leading them into oblivion?

Im not sure thats a great comparison to be honest but ill run with it. Id certainly say those who pay for a season ticket and support the team on have more of a right to dictate and complain over such a matter. Others can complain as much as they like but theyre not contributors.

Lost voters to UKIP would certainly be the half/half scarf buyers though

 

[Shamwow]

Im not sure thats a great comparison to be honest but ill run with it. Id certainly say those who pay for a season ticket and support the team on have more of a right to dictate and complain over such a matter. Others can complain as much as they like but theyre not contributors.

Lost voters to UKIP would certainly be the half/half scarf buyers though

It'd be more comparable to say Barcelona where supporters do actually get a say in who the president is.

And that seems to work quite well for them funnily enough.

 

[Smores]

It sounds more like you've been worn down by the situation than actually support Smith. I think that's part of the strategy personally.

I have but its not that. I have little issue or pride tied into being right or wrong or abandoning positions on most matters ill just go with what i think is the best route forward.

Its not pleasant to stomach but the rebel elements exist and even if it wasnt well done their rebellion was enough. Corbyns chance has gone he wont win the public round now so id rather go with the route that could instead even if its flawed. One final nail away from cancelling my membership though, the greens are a tempting cause.

 

[Shamwow]

I have but its not that. I have little issue or pride tied into being right or wrong or abandoning positions on most matters ill just go with what i think is the best route forward.

Its not pleasant to stomach but the rebel elements exist and even if it wasnt well done their rebellion was enough. Corbyns chance has gone he wont win the public round now so id rather go with the route that could instead even if its flawed. One final nail away from cancelling my membership though, the greens are a tempting cause.

I think it's too early to say that he can't win the public round. It's easy to feel like that because we have been so bombarded by negative stuff over the last 9 months but the rebel MPs will fall into line if Corbyn wins again. This is their last chance to beat Corbyn which is why they are making it seem so life or death. Same as with the EU referendum - I'm devastated that we voted to leave but the fear mongering from Remain was shown to be disingenuous in a lot of cases.

I also think it's clear that Corbyn is learning from this situation and recognising that he needs to make his voice heard publicly a lot more because when he doesn't he always gets misrepresented.

 

[RedChip]

Im not sure thats a great comparison to be honest but ill run with it. Id certainly say those who pay for a season ticket and support the team on have more of a right to dictate and complain over such a matter. Others can complain as much as they like but theyre not contributors.

Lost voters to UKIP would certainly be the half/half scarf buyers though

And yet here we are. Redcafe. Loads of united fans without a single investment in tangible terms in United, except, of course, their support. Almost all of them complaining about this or that. And yet most other fans on here don't go, 'Stop complaining you non-stakeholder. If you want to complain, buy some shares or, at least, a season ticket.' Why do you think, then, this parallel doesn't work with political party support?

 

[Shamwow]

And yet here we are. Redcafe. Loads of united fans without a single investment in tangible terms in United, except, of course, their support. Almost all of them complaining about this or that. And yet most other fans on here don't go, 'Stop complaining you non-stakeholder. If you want to complain, buy some shares or, at least, a season ticket.' Why do you think, then, this parallel doesn't work with political party support?

I don't recall anyone telling you to stop complaining.

 

[RedChip]

I don't recall anyone telling you to stop complaining.

No. But @Smores said I should get off my arse and join the party if I want representation. Or words to that effect.

 

[Ubik]

The actual state of Len McCluskey now - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...es-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn

I knew he was a misogynistic twat, but he's gone full batshit here.

 

[Shamwow]

No. But @Smores said I should get off my arse and join the party if I want representation. Or words to that effect.

But it's just a statement of fact that you will get more direct representation in the Labour party if you join it.

I think Smores is just annoyed at you criticising him for actually doing that but then making a choice that you don't agree with.

 

[Kaos]

And yet here we are. Redcafe. Loads of united fans without a single investment in tangible terms in United, except, of course, their support. Almost all of them complaining about this or that. And yet most other fans on here don't go, 'Stop complaining you non-stakeholder. If you want to complain, buy some shares or, at least, a season ticket.' Why do you think, then, this parallel doesn't work with political party support?

Well not it doesn't actually, considering that being a football fan is largely a passive endeavour, we don't have a say on how the club is run, who we sign or who our sponsors are. For democracy to work however requires the active participation of the electorate, if you don't vote or take part in the political process than there's no use complaining about developments brought about by those who have bothered to exercise their political right.