The article says that Macron split from the tradional left party in France and won a majority. I was wondering if there were fears about that split would split the left vote in France or does the electoral system over there make it easier for something like that to happen?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
The article says that Macron split from the tradional left party in France and won a majority. I was wondering if there were fears about that split would split the left vote in France or does the electoral system over there make it easier for something like that to happen?
Oh okay. No idea to be honest but I'd imagine it'd be very difficult here where so many people vote out of obligation to one party or another. If we boiled down to those who actually voted based on whose policies they wished to be implemented as opposed to 'I always vote/my parents always voted', then the electorate would probably be reduced by about 70%. I voted for Blair in 2005, Brown 2010, Miliband 2015 and whoever that homophobic cnut who lead the Lib Dems was in 2017, the latter purely as a protest vote against the two main parties over their equally obnoxious positions on Brexit. If I wasn't a Labour supporter and member in the previous elections I probably would have still voted the way I had 2005-2015, but who knows. You can't recognise your own biases, I guess.
But for any new party it's going to be close to impossible to get to any kind of position where they'd be ready to challenge for power outside of four or five general election cycles, maybe more. An insurgency, single-issue protest party could be successful but there success will be defined as a few MPs and in the long-run there'd be no point in that.
Hollande's approval rating was in single digits when he made his move.
Macron's own is now -25 (net), btw.
The difference is Hollande wasn't really a 'leftist' in the same sense as Corbyn - he probably came a lot closer to being a moderate, and the socialist party was further outflanked on the left by Melenchon. Plus the French voting system allows a number of parties to compete in the first stage before the final round, meaning politicians can split away with the knowledge that they'll probably then conform to the choice which best suits them in the final round. We don't have that here - a split wouldn't allow a centrist Labour outfit to compete in any second round exclusively against the Tories, but would only end up splitting the Labour vote, thus empowering the Tories.
I think most of them will remain within the party after Corbyn leaves provided another solid leftist takes over. They're less interested in the man and more the general wing of politics he represents. Much as it probably won't happen because he's a bit too controversial, I imagine someone like McDonnell would be able to retain a lot of the new members due to his left-wing credentials, and indeed he'd perhaps even galvanise them by being a fresh face who's arguably a better speaker than Corbyn is. The only thing that'd perhaps help the centrists would be a crushing defeat for Corbyn, but with the current weakness of the Tory party, demographic changes as increasing numbers of young people vote Labour, and the fact that he tends to do well during campaigns, I'm not particularly sure I see him being defeated resoundingly at all, even if he's able to get power. And (again) the assumption here is that there's a viable centrist candidate to take his place - right now there isn't, and indeed the centrist wing of the party right now can't claim to be more electable than the left.
Bloody hell, that's very much what I tried to say, in every respect, I'm just not as good at it. Except I think that long term what might help the centrists is a victory for Corbyn rather than a defeat, but they would have to make it clear why they were different of course.
Labour hits new fundraising record of nearly £56m
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2018/08/22/labour-hits-new-fundraising-record-of-nearly-a-56m/
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2018/08/22/labour-hits-new-fundraising-record-of-nearly-a-56m/
Micron is just another off the French conveyor belt of shit leaders.
Straight talking honest politics...
You know like saying yes or no to a simple question instead of avoiding it six times
You know like saying yes or no to a simple question instead of avoiding it six times
I challenge you to a name a leader you rated from the UK, France or Germany during your lifetime.
Not an easy question to answer for anyone. I wouldn't trust anyone giving a straight answer to that question.
The problem is no one including our PM knows what sort of brexit we're having. So it's not a straight forward answer, pretty clear Corbyn believes the softer the brexit we have the better of we will be and if the outcome is a very soft brexit it probably won't effect the country much at all.
The succession is the big issue.
Corbyn is 69. McDonnell is 66.
If Corbyn were elected at the next scheduled election he would be the oldest first time PM ever elected.
So the left needs a successor and that is where the splits will be. Thornberry is well placed as a woman is favoured but her position on Israel means she is despised by the PSC Labour members.
Rayner and Long-Bailey are trumpeted by some on the Left but are inexperienced and unknown quantities.
Corbynism without Corbyn is the big unsolved issue. I don't think there is a future for Corbynism beyond Corbyn right now, unless and until a successor is found. That is why everyone on the Left of the Party seems so defensive of Corbyn. They know that if he goes there is no clear Leftist candidate to replace him, and they do not want splits on the Left or a civil war over replacing him.
why does Corbyn need a sensible plan? (he probably does have a plan about how britain would run out of the EU, as hes a long term believer that we shouldn't be part of the European union, it's just not in the public domain).
Like you said he's not going to be part of the negotiations, he can just go along with the line that he supports brexit, but only under the right circumstances. He doesn't need to go offering his view on what we should be doing in negotiations. Whatever happens with brexit there is going to be a large proportion of people not happy. If there's a soft brexit he can campaign on the tories messed up and didn't go far enough, and if its a no deal brexit campaign on we should've had a softer brexit.
If he starts relieving his hand now he doesn't gain anything, he can still talk about how the tories are floundering in negotiations and say he would've done it all differently if he was PM when brexit inevitably goes wrong.
That's the thing with being in opposition you don't have to reveal your plan just slate the opposition decisions as their heading for a no win scenario. Then when it all goes wrong say you would've done the complete opposite to win the next election. which is exactly what Cameron et al did with the world financial banking crisis - not offer any opinion on how to solve the problem, just slate gordon browns labour government, presented the world economic crash as labours fault and say we would've done it better if we were in governement, then win the next election.
I can see quite a lot of this but I'm still puzzled, are you saying we should vote for him or not, because as an advert it doesn't come across too well?
Don't think how he's playing this situation should really effect whether you vote for him or not, he's clearly just playing the game which all leaders of their parties do to some degree to try and get themselves in power. Ultimately the sad thing is what politicians do and say in opposition have little baring on what they do in power, its all about gathering support and holding the government to scrutiny.
What you should be voting on in my opinion is what are the core beliefs of the parties are on the major issues facing this country/ issues important to you and how you think they will play certain situations to remain in power (and it's not necessarily what politicians say openly).
Myself the things that are important to me are brexit (a remainer), funding the NHS properly and providing education and opportunities to young people. Now i don't believe if Corbyn was PM we would remain, he would fund the NHS to the levels that he implies or that access to education and other opportunties for young people would be a million miles better than it currently is. I also believe he would have a different view to me on other issues. Overall however I think on the issues that matter most to me he would be much better than the alternative of a tory government and he genuinely seems to believe that this country could be doing a much better job at looking out for joe average than we currently are.
Thanks, your original post was mostly about Brexit, and it's that I was asking about. A good answer though, and I appreciate someone who tries to weigh the balance of policies, I much prefer that to all this 'my party is always right' bollocks.
He has revealed a plan, which is basically the same as the Tories, he's just worded it differently. He wants to be in 'a' customs union, but wants to leave 'the' EU customs union, same as the Tories and utter nonsense. He wants to stop FoM, same as the Tories but wants access to the single market , as the EU have said for the zillionth time, the four freedoms are indivisible , it's crass stupidity.
Without going into his other policies, Brexit will be the most decisive and divisive event for a generation, not a minor event that will disappear in a couple of years.
To become PM he has to show that he is capable of being a leader of the country, since Brexit started he comes across as a wet lettuce and having listened to quite a few PMQs he stutters and stammers against a pathetic and worst ever PM in Theresa May and looks lost half the time.
Now say I was going to vote in the next UK election, I've become disillusioned with the Tory government, furious about Brexit but would I vote for him? I would have taken note of his performance and what he's said and no way in this world would I vote for him and that's before considering his other policies.
It's these type of voters he's got to win over and he's going to really struggle.
I think that's why the biggest push has been on structural changes so the leftist voice within the party isn't pushed out. There's been mixed success there and obviously the leader determines a lot of the direction anyway but i think it'll end up being a broader base than before even if a more centrist candidate is chosen next.
I just hope the campaign when it does occur which probably isn't that far into the future isn't just another poisonous battle between left and right of the party as it'll serve no one well.
Sadly I do not share your optimism about the next leadership election. Although I am not sure if the party will still be held together by then. And the NEC elections will reinforce the Left's hold on the Party I think.
On other points I really regret the membership churn which has led to us becoming more left wing. Huge numbers of centre and centre-left members have left, in part because of the infighting, and I regret that very much as we are stronger with them as members.
I think that the internal reforms could go one of two ways. I have a skewed opinion as I live in a Momentum stronghold, but there are a few worrying trends amongst the hardcore on the Left of the Party which I am worried about. First is a view that any MP who defies the whip should be punished and censured. This despite the fact that the current leader defied the whip over 550 times. Second, the elements of a cult of personality around Corbyn, which helps no-one, is held by a significant minority of the Left of the Party. This makes the issue of the succession even more fraught. Third, the push for mandatory reselection which will lead to MPs being targeted for being too right-wing and huge amounts of energy used in fighting their deselection (and resisting it), making us turn further inward and affecting our standing with the electorate further.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html
A few points and questions, leaving aside that this was the Daily Mail.
1) Clearly the right wing press have dozens of these sorts of stories that they are releasing at vulnerable moments for Labour. That's to be expected. But have there been so many of these that people are tuning out?
2) How is this playing amongst the electorate? Not the membership, where it won't really make an impact.
3) Does anyone think a story will be released that is so serious that Corbyn will resign? I am of the opinion that he won't resign under any circumstances.
A few points and questions, leaving aside that this was the Daily Mail.
1) Clearly the right wing press have dozens of these sorts of stories that they are releasing at vulnerable moments for Labour. That's to be expected. But have there been so many of these that people are tuning out?
2) How is this playing amongst the electorate? Not the membership, where it won't really make an impact.
3) Does anyone think a story will be released that is so serious that Corbyn will resign? I am of the opinion that he won't resign under any circumstances.
practically no changes since the 2017 GE
Which is pretty extraordinary given what's happened with this government since then, isn't it?
I mean, in 2015 before Corbyn, I thought Brexit and the UK's inherent conservatism would keep Labour out of power till 2025. Their 2017 result and polling since has outperformed by expectations of Labour.
Cast your mind back to 2010. Tell a Labour supporter then that losing the next two general elections after that would represent outperforming expectations. They'd hang themselves and with some justification. The Tory result of 2010 was not a result that should have needed what is now a minimum of 3 general election cycles to overturn.
And 2017 was only really decent result for Labour against the backdrop of the expectation of it being a fecking disaster. It wasn't a fecking disaster - but they still lost. There's no way expectation should have been that low going into that election in the first place. The fact it was doesn't represent a triumph for the leadership either.
Yes, but the strong Conservative re-election in 2015* proved your 2010 analysis wrong. In addition, Brexit means a more fundamental unbridgeable divide for Labour's base as compared to the Tory base and that was obvious from the moment it was announced.
The fact that Labour have more than a fair shot at forming a govt if a snap election happens now is unexpected.
*seriously, check the voting %ages and swings for that one.
The Tories went into the 2017 campaign having been the party that just lost a national referendum a year earlier. Splits were already starting to show. No real plan for implementation of that vote they humiliatingly lost already evident. If you just look at that it's absolutely criminal that the opposition went into that campaign with everyone fearing a disaster. Labour should have gone into that campaign with high expectations, not with them on the floor. Labour should have went into that campaign expecting to win and had it lost at all been bitterly disappointed. The reality was they went into the campaign expecting it to be a disaster and were pleased when the defeat wasn't as bad as everyone feared. Spinning that into a positive is something I cannot get my head around.
This is a meaningless rant created in a vacuum since you have no answer as to why your 2010 predictions failed, or how to mobilise the Labour base given the context of Brexit.
Presenter: Now over to our new political editor Rick from Hull for all the latest from Westminster...
Rick: Yeah thanks Tim. Yeah so Theresa May said some stuff today, didn't understand most of it, more importantly though when the FOOK, are Manchester United gonna sack that prick Josey Mooreeneyo?
Presenter: Thanks Rick. You can of course follow Rick's latest analysis at twitter.com/rickprick
What's wrong with that ? Theres a clearly a problem with the media being full of white middle to upper classes, to the where they themselves admit to having no fecking clue whats going on politically.
Also whats that thing on the guy head ?
Depends on what he's actually suggesting. Doing analysis and reporting what the percentages are for each social class might be fine. Declaring what each person's background is should really be up to them individually (if they choose to do so).
Don't think the media being full of white, middle to upper classes is necessarily something to cry conspiracy over either.
Who decides what is public oriented journalists that needs tax funding?
Well yeah I doubt the policy is blast it across the airways which school Andrew Marr went to.
Who said that ?
Must have misread you there.
I just think it's pretty normal for it to be filled (a large % of them) with white people from the middle/upper classes. I don't see it as necessarily a problem.
Oh no worries. I just thinking about the courage of things like the fire at Grenfell tower and the almost silent courage before the disaster, Brexit and the left be hide towns,2017 election etc. Broad parts of the media were quite open at the time at just how far removed they where from basically rest of the country. After the last election Channel 4 Jon Snow had a opening segment basically saying yeah we know feck all at the moment and this very worrying.
But it shouldn't be right ?
Not sure how anyone can disagree with the statements
1) the demographics of the news media skew upper-middle class, white and male.
2) Your socioeconomic background has an affect on your experience of the world and your politics.
3) Your experience has an impact on your politics, affects what you deem newsworthy, and influences the way in which you analyse events.
It's clear that the media is completely out of touch with the average person on the street and that many commentators have no insight into, or interest in, the lives of ordinary people, much less the lives of marginalised groups. Generally speaking, the media has huge blindspots regarding poverty, inequality, the experience of disadvantaged groups and non-metropolitan Britain in general. The reason the media didn't see Brexit coming is because they had no understanding of why people in post-industrial areas which have been left to rot under various governments over the course of 40 years might not trust politicians telling them how to vote. The reason they didn't see Grenfell coming despite community groups and the left going on about dangerous and poor quality housing for decades is because they'd never lived in or visited a place like it so they couldn't believe they existed and wrote it off as the left getting overexcited over nothing.
A recent example relevant to this thread is when Corbyn raised buses in a PMQs and the media had a go at him for being out of touch with reality and raising such a niche topic. In reality, buses are the most relied-on form of public transport across the country and services are generally more-expensive and less-reliable then ever and it's a huge issue outside of the big cities.
1) the demographics of the news media skew upper-middle class, white and male.
2) Your socioeconomic background has an affect on your experience of the world and your politics.
3) Your experience has an impact on your politics, affects what you deem newsworthy, and influences the way in which you analyse events.
It's clear that the media is completely out of touch with the average person on the street and that many commentators have no insight into, or interest in, the lives of ordinary people, much less the lives of marginalised groups. Generally speaking, the media has huge blindspots regarding poverty, inequality, the experience of disadvantaged groups and non-metropolitan Britain in general. The reason the media didn't see Brexit coming is because they had no understanding of why people in post-industrial areas which have been left to rot under various governments over the course of 40 years might not trust politicians telling them how to vote. The reason they didn't see Grenfell coming despite community groups and the left going on about dangerous and poor quality housing for decades is because they'd never lived in or visited a place like it so they couldn't believe they existed and wrote it off as the left getting overexcited over nothing.
A recent example relevant to this thread is when Corbyn raised buses in a PMQs and the media had a go at him for being out of touch with reality and raising such a niche topic. In reality, buses are the most relied-on form of public transport across the country and services are generally more-expensive and less-reliable then ever and it's a huge issue outside of the big cities.
Last edited:
Yes, that’s all reasonable. Not sure how you fix it though to be honest.