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

Cheesy said:
To be fair, the party did have a sense of purpose in the Blair era...which is why they won three elections. In recent times though, they've been going through the motions. Backing down against the Tories on certain cuts because they feel it's what voters want was ridiculous, for example. Just completely and utterly backwards when you think about what Labour should be standing for.
Click to expand...
Labour in 1945 - massive austerity measures. Labour in 1976 - massive austerity measures. The people who say it's a betrayal of the party's history to agree on easing spending are flat out wrong.

I'd agree there was a far greater sense of purpose in the Blair years though, I've been saying for a while that the moderates need to spend a long time refreshing their ideas and putting together a programme that isn't Blair reheated before looking to challenge Corbyn. Which in fairness to the likes of Umunna and Hunt, they have been beginning to do (though the latter should not get near the leader position either, he has a tendency towards foot in mouth).
 
Ubik said:
That does not constitute an invasion in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...
Well obviously you don't know that do you, if you don't know how many are here, where they are, or what they are planning.

Shamwow said:
Why are you asking me? If you think there is an invasion then you should be able to provide the facts.

For what it's worth my answer would be "not even remotely close to near enough to constitute an invasion".
Click to expand...
It's obvious why I'm asking you. You're the one who jumped in to reply without reading what I said.

If you read my post you will be able to see that nowhere in that post did I say that there is an invasion, did I?

Now just answer the question I put to you properly....how many? If you don't know then just say that you don't know.
 
Red Defence said:
Well obviously you don't know that do you, if you don't know how many are here, where they are, or what they are planning.

It's obvious why I'm asking you. You're the one who jumped in to reply without reading what I said.

If you read my post you will be able to see that nowhere in that post did I say that there is an invasion, did I?

Now just answer the question I put to you properly....how many? If you don't know then just say that you don't know.
Click to expand...

You said "who's to say this isn't the case" which is the kind of bullshit people write when they want to put forward an opinion without having to defend it.
 
Politics, eh? One minute you're bemoaning how your party resembles a coma patient and you might as well pull the plug. The next, the patient is positively kicking the NHS blankets onto the floor and asking for a glass of water.

As a word of explanation, there now follows quite possibly the most boring sentence on the internet this year: the results of elections to the chairmanships of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) committees have been announced.

No, don't click away! This is important. Each committee covers the remit of a Whitehall department, and the chair of each committee, in theory, at least, speaks for the PLP (note: not the front bench) on those subject areas.

PLP committees are an oft-overlooked institution, rarely meeting and never noticed — by Labour MPs, let alone the media.


That is about to change. Because for the first time, like, ever, a great deal of importance is being attached to these elections in which only Labour MPs can participate. And look at who's been elected: Ian Austin at education, Tristram Hunt at Communities and Local Government, Caroline Flint at Energy and Climate Change, the heroic Mike Gapes at Foreign Affairs.

The list — and the pattern — goes on. The first thing to grab your attention is that almost every new committee chair is a staunch and high-profile critic of the new Corbynite regime. Sensible, sound chaps and chapettes, each one.

The second thing to notice is that the cast list is arguably more impressive than the current Shadow Cabinet, and indeed features some who refused to serve under Corbyn.

These election results are essentially a two-fingered salute by the PLP to its "leader", Mr Corbyn, and his extremist allies. This is the PLP saying: "Okay, we screwed up by allowing Corbyn on the ballot paper back in July. Sorry about that. We won't make the same mistake again."

In normal peacetime, these elections wouldn't matter a damn. I was chair of the PLP Northern Ireland committee at one point and I don't recall being called on to comment on the peace process at regular intervals. But these are not normal times. PLP committee chairs can now be expected to have wildly differing views from their Shadow Cabinet equivalents — or at least will have, as Corbyn uses his mandate to roll out whatever policy-making process he will inevitably use to stamp his authority upon policy.

And given the mandate (see, Jeremy? You're not the only one!) now enjoyed by these individuals, the nation will understand that they speak with the authority of the whole PLP. Shadow Cabinet ministers, on the other hand, will speak only with the authority of one man.

CTCyxOvWIAEYqrL.jpg
Click to expand...
 
And given the mandate (see, Jeremy? You're not the only one!) now enjoyed by these individuals, the nation will understand that they speak with the authority of the whole PLP. Shadow Cabinet ministers, on the other hand, will speak only with the authority of one man.
Click to expand...

Ugh.
 
Untied said:
Fair point. I wouldn't wish US politics on anyone.

In terms of Labour's situation, they have found themselves in a real bind that there is no easy escape from. If they keep to the centre, unless the Tories cock things up in the next 5 years/there is another crash, they will not be sufficiently trusted on the economy by ex-New Labour voters to win, plus they will flake votes to UKIP as they are seen to not represent the working classes, and they will flake votes to the Greens and the SNP for not being left-wing enough.

The route Corbyn is taking could be even worse. They will not be trusted on the economy, they will lose even more 'New Labour' voters, who are turned off by a genuinely left-wing party, Corbyn seems to be a love/hate figure with UKIP voters (their voters are a disparate bunch of right wingers and working class voters) but probably won't win enough back to win many seats, he will win votes from the Greens but this won't swing any seats in his favour, and I suspect that although SNP voters will like his policies they'd rather continue to vote for Scottish interests.

In both situations Labour will need a good slice of luck to win in 2020. Their best hope is that the Lib Dems can rebuild in the south-west (not unlikely), that the economy crashes in 18/19 (possible), and that the full force of further spending cuts over the course of this government sees public services begin to buckle (possible). Strangely it might also be in Labour's interests for Britain to vote to leave the EU. That should kill UKIP, lead to a second Scottish referendum and probably an independent Scotland, which would also kill the SNP threat ("You'll end up with an SNP coalition if you vote Labour")
Click to expand...

An independent Scotland is no good for labour, they would struggle to get anywhere near enough seats with out Scottish voters.
 
Ducklegs said:
An independent Scotland is no good for labour, they would struggle to get anywhere near enough seats with out Scottish voters.
Click to expand...

Labour has won 9 elections since 1945. Only one of those wins would have changed without the Scottish seats, and that change would have been from a majority government to a minority government in '64.

Meanwhile 60% of English voters are very concerned at the prospect of an SNP coalition. An independent Scotland will help Labour win English seats and they cannot win an election without English seats.

cruddas-independent-inquiry-2-440x285.png
 
Untied said:
Labour has won 9 elections since 1945. Only one of those wins would have changed without the Scottish seats, and that change would have been from a majority government to a minority government in '64.

Meanwhile 60% of English voters are very concerned at the prospect of an SNP coalition. An independent Scotland will help Labour win English seats and they cannot win an election without English seats.

cruddas-independent-inquiry-2-440x285.png
Click to expand...
Unfortunetly that's the past, not now.

Labour took virtually no seats from the Tories in the last election, unless the Take seats from the Tories, they need Scotland.
With their being little to no Lib-dem cannon fodder to switch to labour they NEED those Scottish seats.
 
Untied said:
Labour has won 9 elections since 1945. Only one of those wins would have changed without the Scottish seats, and that change would have been from a majority government to a minority government in '64.

Meanwhile 60% of English voters are very concerned at the prospect of an SNP coalition. An independent Scotland will help Labour win English seats and they cannot win an election without English seats.

cruddas-independent-inquiry-2-440x285.png
Click to expand...
This is true, even in 05 Labour won the most seats in England by a fair amount (though they got less of the popular vote, and since the electoral system is no longer working in their favour such a result probably wouldn't happen now). Not really a price worth paying though.
 
Also, Jim McMahon, a moderate, chosen as Labour's candidate for the Oldham West by-election. Good choice. Fingers crossed UKIP don't repeat earlier by-election performances, and Labour should be able to attack them well due to Carswell's voting record on tax credits.
 
Jeremy Corbyn's senior policy adviser Andrew Fisher has been suspended from the Labour Party pending a report by its ruling body.

He has faced calls for his expulsion after suggesting people should back a Class War candidate in May's election instead of Labour's candidate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34751471
 
There's a tory who waits for cameron to deliver a crushing 'fact' and then shouts 'ahh' in an extremely posh voice. I've not seen who it is but just one syllable tells you everything about the tosser.
 
Politics Weekly podcast: Live at the Soho Theatre

The Conservatives are only 6 months into their first majority government in a generation, and many are already taking victory in the next election for granted.

And yet there are signs the party are running into trouble in the Commons, in the Lords and on the streets. We ask: how can they most effectively be opposed?

Stella Creasy, Matt Forde, Hugh Muir and Anne Perkins join Tom Clark for a special edition of Politics Weekly live at the Soho Theatre as part of the Guardian's Alternative Party Conference.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-weekly-podcast-alternative-party-conference
 
The Corbyn hardcore plotting to deselect Labour moderates

Internal plots to get rid of moderate Labour MPs are being hatched by some members of the party's new Momentum movement, the Telegraph can reveal

By Andrew Gilligan
07 Nov 2015

Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.

Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.

The south London borough of Lewisham can be revealed as a key target for Momentum, with the group likely to challenge at least two of the area’s moderate Labour MPs. Concerted efforts have also begun to get moderate Labour incumbents pushed down the rankings of the party’s candidates for next year’s Welsh and Scottish elections, putting them at great risk of losing their seats.

Momentum has harvested thousands of confidential personal records of Labour members, including their private emails and telephone numbers, and is already using them to operate phonebanks, it can be disclosed. The tactic has caused a major row, with Momentum’s opponents claiming it is illegal under data protection laws.

Momentum, launched last month to “continue the energy and enthusiasm of Jeremy’s campaign,” insists it is a “social movement” which is “not campaigning at all on any deselections” of MPs. Speaking to the BBC, the group’s spokesman, James Schneider, said: “The purpose of Momentum is not to have internal factional battles, it’s to look outside.”

However, bulletins and documents seen by the Telegraph – some confidential, others openly published online - make clear that Momentum leaders and activists have different ideas.
Click to expand...

Full article :: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...re-plotting-to-deselect-Labour-moderates.html
 
Well said General Sir Nicholas Houghton and Maria Eagle.
 
sun_tzu said:
Presumably the shadow defence secretary Corbyn appointed is also a Tory Mouthpiece as she seemed to agree with the general
Click to expand...
Unlike the Shadow defence secretary he as no say in politics especially showing bias one way or the other.
 
Drifter said:
Unlike the Shadow defence secretary he as no say in politics especially showing bias one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he is putting morals first and saying what he believes... You know like when Corbyn voted against the labour party all those times
Or perhaps like Corbyn's adviser he thinks the rules don't apply to him?
 
Idiot Corbyn talks of Houghton "....taking sides..." like its some kids arguement but when Houghton says....

"When people say you're never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don't have to use it because you successfully deter.
If a prime minister said they would never press the nuclear button, "the deterrent is then completely undermined"

...only an idiot would miss the point.
 
If I recall the same general talked about fixing his bayonet to fight against proposed conservative cuts before the last election... So hardly a "Tory Mouthpiece"
A general giving his opinion on the nation's defences seems fair enough... And it's almost impossible to completely de-politicise that - afterall defence of the nation is one of the government's key responsibilities.
 
Marching said:
Idiot Corbyn talks of Houghton "....taking sides..." like its some kids arguement but when Houghton says....

"When people say you're never going to use the deterrent, what I say is you use the deterrent every second of every minute of every day and the purpose of the deterrent is that you don't have to use it because you successfully deter.
If a prime minister said they would never press the nuclear button, "the deterrent is then completely undermined"

...only an idiot would miss the point.
Click to expand...

I don't think Corbyn disagreed with him that promising to not use nuclear weapons undermines the nuclear deterrent? Although those in favour of a nuclear deterrent often shy away from its realities, I agree with Houghton, it only functions because we are continually threatening other countries with a retaliatory nuclear strike. That's what a nuclear deterrent is: A promise to kill hundreds of thousands in retaliation for killing hundreds of thousands.

What Corbyn was criticising is the army taking a political position. It's a difficult one. The head of the armed forces probably should be able to offer his own personal opinion on a nuclear deterrent, but he is in a role that should remain politically neutral (there are plenty of those: civil servants, local government officers, etc) and saying he would be worried if the leader of the opposition came into power, in his role as head of the armed forces, is not acceptable in a liberal democracy.
 
Untied said:
I don't think Corbyn disagreed with him that promising to not use nuclear weapons undermines the nuclear deterrent? Although those in favour of a nuclear deterrent often shy away from its realities, I agree with Houghton, it only functions because we are continually threatening other countries with a retaliatory nuclear strike. That's what a nuclear deterrent is: A promise to kill hundreds of thousands in retaliation for killing hundreds of thousands.

What Corbyn was criticising is the army taking a political position. It's a difficult one. The head of the armed forces probably should be able to offer his own personal opinion on a nuclear deterrent, but he is in a role that should remain politically neutral (there are plenty of those: civil servants, local government officers, etc) and saying he would be worried if the leader of the opposition came into power, in his role as head of the armed forces, is not acceptable in a liberal democracy.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.