This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Funny, I'm sure I've been saying this for some time...
> Working class voters feel that the Labour Party no longer understands them or their concerns, a Labour frontbencher has warned. "They don't feel that anyone listens to them, never mind speaks for them," opposition whip Conor McGinn said. He said the challenge facing leader, and Islington MP, Jeremy Corbyn was to relate to the rest of the UK.
> In an interview with Parliament's House magazine, Mr McGinn, MP for St Helens North, said: "I think there is a political crisis that has engulfed what would be seen as the traditional Labour working class. They don't feel that anyone listens to them, never mind speaks for them. "And I think that's a real problem for the Labour Party particularly. Sometimes it can seem that we're preoccupied with things that are insignificant to the population." Labour, he said, needed to appeal to ordinary voters if it wanted to win elections. "I think when you lose an election you should look at the reasons why and try, within the parameters of your own values, to move closer to the public, not further away from the public."
> Mr McGinn said Mr Corbyn (pictured) needed to relate to voters across the UK - not just in Islington. "I think the challenge for Jeremy having been an MP for 30-odd years for a seat like Islington, is how he relates to the rest of the country," he added. The MP also said many people wanted a secure job with a decent wage that enabled him to afford his own home, and an annual holiday or a new car. "The problem with sections of the left is that they sneer at people like that," he said. He added: "There is a patrician socialism that not only wants to tell working class people what's best for them, but what they should and shouldn't think.
> "I think if we are to have a genuine revival in the politics of the left, then we need to start listening to people and hearing their truths."
There it goes again.,.....
Post edited at 06:32
5
4
5
13
2
In reply to Big Ger:
he isn't going to sell up and move out of Islington, people might see just how much the poor down trodden socialist worker MP's house is worth, when he buys a whole street up north for the same money.
What ever next, bacon butty eating lessons for milliband in advance of his return to the shadow cabinet. Perhaps some consultant can put together a special champagne socialist course, where they are taught the basics of being working class.
he isn't going to sell up and move out of Islington, people might see just how much the poor down trodden socialist worker MP's house is worth, when he buys a whole street up north for the same money.
What ever next, bacon butty eating lessons for milliband in advance of his return to the shadow cabinet. Perhaps some consultant can put together a special champagne socialist course, where they are taught the basics of being working class.
4
2
In reply to summo:
How long has he lived in this house of his? How much was it worth when he bought it? The market value now is almost meaningless unles you have the answers to those questions. If my house has gone up by 180% in 15 years, then I imagine his has gone up way more in twice as long.
> he isn't going to sell up and move out of Islington, people might see just how much the poor down trodden socialist worker MP's house is worth, when he buys a whole street up north for the same money.
How long has he lived in this house of his? How much was it worth when he bought it? The market value now is almost meaningless unles you have the answers to those questions. If my house has gone up by 180% in 15 years, then I imagine his has gone up way more in twice as long.
5
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Don't give me all that, didn't you know he owns not one but TWO bicycles? Absolutely decadent the filthy champagne swilling wanabee socialist.
Don't give me all that, didn't you know he owns not one but TWO bicycles? Absolutely decadent the filthy champagne swilling wanabee socialist.
Post edited at 08:48
12
In reply to Removed User:
Hold your horses....I heard he owns a third bike, a tandem! but it's kept in a shed in Panama to hide the second seat from prying eyes.
Hold your horses....I heard he owns a third bike, a tandem! but it's kept in a shed in Panama to hide the second seat from prying eyes.
6
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Don't forget how much he pays for his vests ! And how much he rakes in from expenses ? Oh, wait a minute...
Don't forget how much he pays for his vests ! And how much he rakes in from expenses ? Oh, wait a minute...
4
In reply to pebbles:
Maybe if you had some experience of life overseas, your views wouldn't be so narrow.
But there again, it's typical of some here to attack the person , not debate the point.
PS. The "knowledge" and information involved in this thread comes from this man;
But hell, what would he know about UK politics and the Labour party eh?
> if only I lived in australia too, so I could know all about UK politics
Maybe if you had some experience of life overseas, your views wouldn't be so narrow.
But there again, it's typical of some here to attack the person , not debate the point.
PS. The "knowledge" and information involved in this thread comes from this man;
> Conor Patrick McGinn (born 31 July 1984 in Camlough) is a British Labour Party politician. On 7 May 2015 he was elected as the Member of Parliament (MP) for St Helens North. He is from Camlough, South Armagh, Northern Ireland. Before his election he represented the socialist societies on the Labour Party National Executive Committee. He worked as an advisor to Vernon Coaker, then shadow defence secretary. Post election he was appointed to the Defence Select Committee and he currently serves as an Opposition Whip.
But hell, what would he know about UK politics and the Labour party eh?
Post edited at 22:22
6
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Slight amendment for you there
> But hell, what would he know about UK politics and New Labour eh?
Slight amendment for you there
3
1
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
He seems to know sweet FA about " champagne socialist " Corbyn at any rate.
> But hell, what would he know about UK politics and the Labour party eh?
He seems to know sweet FA about " champagne socialist " Corbyn at any rate.
1
In reply to Removed User:
He's Bolshevik scum. I heard he has even unwaveringly maintained his principles for as long as he's been active in politics. Talk about cowardly publicity seeking.
> Don't give me all that, didn't you know he owns not one but TWO bicycles? Absolutely decadent the filthy champagne swilling wanabee socialist.
He's Bolshevik scum. I heard he has even unwaveringly maintained his principles for as long as he's been active in politics. Talk about cowardly publicity seeking.
4
In reply to Big Ger: "
"Mr McGinn, MP for St Helens North" should keep his stupid mouth shut, who does he speak for?
Doing a great job uniting behind your DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader.
Of course if him and his mates stopped saying JC is shit then this might just help Labour get more voters, but that never seems to occur to the slimy wankers.
Seems to me the Labour back-stabbers should go back to school and learn what democracy actually means, perhaps Greece.
"Mr McGinn, MP for St Helens North" should keep his stupid mouth shut, who does he speak for?
Doing a great job uniting behind your DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader.
Of course if him and his mates stopped saying JC is shit then this might just help Labour get more voters, but that never seems to occur to the slimy wankers.
Seems to me the Labour back-stabbers should go back to school and learn what democracy actually means, perhaps Greece.
4
4
In reply to krikoman:
I thought he was elected by tories, paying £3 each vote him in. Seems like money well spent from their perspective. For less than a cost of coffee you can make labour unelectable for a decade or more, that's a bargain.
> Doing a great job uniting behind your DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader.
I thought he was elected by tories, paying £3 each vote him in. Seems like money well spent from their perspective. For less than a cost of coffee you can make labour unelectable for a decade or more, that's a bargain.
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
His constituents?
If he truly believes they will be better off under a Labour government, and that Corbyn is unelectable, then he's right to speak out.
> "
> "Mr McGinn, MP for St Helens North" should keep his stupid mouth shut, who does he speak for?
His constituents?
If he truly believes they will be better off under a Labour government, and that Corbyn is unelectable, then he's right to speak out.
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
You heard wrong. I don't believe the sort of stubbornness you describe above is a good thing, and to his credit Jeremy does appear to have compromised his principles in favour of a less divided party.
> I heard he has even unwaveringly maintained his principles for as long as he's been active in politics.
You heard wrong. I don't believe the sort of stubbornness you describe above is a good thing, and to his credit Jeremy does appear to have compromised his principles in favour of a less divided party.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Not strictly true though is it?
As our MP keeps telling me, he's not our "delegate and will continue to vote on his best judgement".
>If he truly believes they will be better off under a Labour government, and that Corbyn is unelectable, then he's right to speak out.
and how will this help the Labour party? If he's not happy he could always f*ck off and start his own party or he could join the Conservatives.
Like a lot of Labour MPs and the new Mayor, they didn't just get elected because people like THEM it was to do with what Labour stands for and the principles behind democracy. There's too many ego's in politics which is why JC was a breathe of fresh air to a lot of people. A prime example is John Mann who seems to think the best way to resolve matters is to shout as loud as you can at someone in a public place. This may be you idea of great representation but it's not mine.
> His constituents?
Not strictly true though is it?
As our MP keeps telling me, he's not our "delegate and will continue to vote on his best judgement".
>If he truly believes they will be better off under a Labour government, and that Corbyn is unelectable, then he's right to speak out.
and how will this help the Labour party? If he's not happy he could always f*ck off and start his own party or he could join the Conservatives.
Like a lot of Labour MPs and the new Mayor, they didn't just get elected because people like THEM it was to do with what Labour stands for and the principles behind democracy. There's too many ego's in politics which is why JC was a breathe of fresh air to a lot of people. A prime example is John Mann who seems to think the best way to resolve matters is to shout as loud as you can at someone in a public place. This may be you idea of great representation but it's not mine.
Post edited at 10:43
2
2
In reply to summo:
Bollocks. Corbyn had an overwhelming majority amongst all layers of Labour membership bar the PLP itself. Just under half of the 245k full members (not the £3 brigade) voted for him, more than double that voted for Burnham, the second most popular in that group.
> I thought he was elected by tories, paying £3 each vote him in. Seems like money well spent from their perspective. For less than a cost of coffee you can make labour unelectable for a decade or more, that's a bargain.
Bollocks. Corbyn had an overwhelming majority amongst all layers of Labour membership bar the PLP itself. Just under half of the 245k full members (not the £3 brigade) voted for him, more than double that voted for Burnham, the second most popular in that group.
3
1
In reply to krikoman:
It is, he's not your delegate but he is your representative. You asked who does he speak for, and he can use his judgement.
Maybe it doesn't, maybe it will in the longterm, I don't know and neither do you.
I've got to say though, you language is similar to many online Corbynistas..... not what I'd call a 'new kind of politics', or low on ego.
> Not strictly true though is it?
> As our MP keeps telling me, he's not our "delegate and will continue to vote on his best judgement".
It is, he's not your delegate but he is your representative. You asked who does he speak for, and he can use his judgement.
> and how will this help the Labour party? If he's not happy he could always f*ck off and start his own party or he could join the Conservatives.
Maybe it doesn't, maybe it will in the longterm, I don't know and neither do you.
I've got to say though, you language is similar to many online Corbynistas..... not what I'd call a 'new kind of politics', or low on ego.
Post edited at 11:20
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Don't start bringing FACTS to the arguement, god knows where this will end up. How dare you!!
> Bollocks. Corbyn had an overwhelming majority amongst all layers of Labour membership bar the PLP itself. Just under half of the 245k full members (not the £3 brigade) voted for him, more than double that voted for Burnham, the second most popular in that group.
Don't start bringing FACTS to the arguement, god knows where this will end up. How dare you!!
2
In reply to Mike Stretford:
My language, please aren't we adults in an adult world?
Beside that I think you'll find Mr Mann's language a little flowery for you too, I don't think he'd be classed as a Corbynista or is it only JC supporters that are worthy of derision?
As for ego, I'm not an MP nor do I want to be, and I represent myself (here at least) so I don't think there's a valid argument there unless of course you comments are based on what others think.
> I've got to say though, you language is similar to many online Corbynistas..... not what I'd call a 'new kind of politics', or low on ego.
My language, please aren't we adults in an adult world?
Beside that I think you'll find Mr Mann's language a little flowery for you too, I don't think he'd be classed as a Corbynista or is it only JC supporters that are worthy of derision?
As for ego, I'm not an MP nor do I want to be, and I represent myself (here at least) so I don't think there's a valid argument there unless of course you comments are based on what others think.
Post edited at 11:55
2
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Fair enough. I meant in a general sense, but he now gets my vote, which is something I haven't said about a Labour leader, ever.
> You heard wrong. I don't believe the sort of stubbornness you describe above is a good thing, and to his credit Jeremy does appear to have compromised his principles in favour of a less divided party.
Fair enough. I meant in a general sense, but he now gets my vote, which is something I haven't said about a Labour leader, ever.
1
In reply to krikoman:
Yeah, I'm good at swearing, maybe I should have said tone.
You brought MR Mann into this, we were talking about Mr McGinn. Corbyn is the leader of the opposition, so his supporters are under more scrutiny. Live with it.
> My language, please aren't we adults in an adult world?
Yeah, I'm good at swearing, maybe I should have said tone.
> Beside that I think you'll find Mr Mann's language a little flowery for you too, I don't think he'd be classed as a Corbynista or is it only JC supporters that are worthy of derision?
You brought MR Mann into this, we were talking about Mr McGinn. Corbyn is the leader of the opposition, so his supporters are under more scrutiny. Live with it.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Which would mean just over half the full members didn't or don't want him? Hardly a majority leader, he just has more than the rest individually. Let's await a stunning labour victory in 2020 with jc at the helm?
> Bollocks. Corbyn had an overwhelming majority amongst all layers of Labour membership bar the PLP itself. Just under half of the 245k full members (not the £3 brigade) voted for him, more than double that voted for Burnham, the second most popular in that group.
Which would mean just over half the full members didn't or don't want him? Hardly a majority leader, he just has more than the rest individually. Let's await a stunning labour victory in 2020 with jc at the helm?
4
In reply to summo:
Just more than the rest individually? Yes, that's called winning an election. This is some pretty weak trolling.
Just more than the rest individually? Yes, that's called winning an election. This is some pretty weak trolling.
2
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I don't mind jc, he is stopping labour getting anywhere. Just wish the libdems could find their leader and capitalise on it. A wasted opportunity, as the tories currently have no effective opposition.
I don't mind jc, he is stopping labour getting anywhere. Just wish the libdems could find their leader and capitalise on it. A wasted opportunity, as the tories currently have no effective opposition.
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
So he's cycling around with ONE seat NOT BEING USED!? At the TAXPAYERS EXPENSE!? And presumably not using the cycle lane and not paying road tax either!?
> Hold your horses....I heard he owns a third bike, a tandem! but it's kept in a shed in Panama to hide the second seat from prying eyes.
So he's cycling around with ONE seat NOT BEING USED!? At the TAXPAYERS EXPENSE!? And presumably not using the cycle lane and not paying road tax either!?
2
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
He's changed his mind on Brexit certainly.
> You heard wrong. I don't believe the sort of stubbornness you describe above is a good thing, and to his credit Jeremy does appear to have compromised his principles in favour of a less divided party.
He's changed his mind on Brexit certainly.
3
1
In reply to Big Ger:
That was the one I was thinking of. On things like Trident he's effectively removed the whip, and he's made his position clear, but on Europe he does appear to have done a u-turn. Personally I don't have a problem with that.
I don't see the appeal of 'unwaveringly sticking to principles'. I prefer people who can admit to flawed principles when they were younger, whose life experience does change their views over time.
> He's changed his mind on Brexit certainly.
That was the one I was thinking of. On things like Trident he's effectively removed the whip, and he's made his position clear, but on Europe he does appear to have done a u-turn. Personally I don't have a problem with that.
I don't see the appeal of 'unwaveringly sticking to principles'. I prefer people who can admit to flawed principles when they were younger, whose life experience does change their views over time.
Post edited at 10:32
1
In reply to summo:
If you're going to come up with "facts" like that then the Conservatives shouldn't be in power because only a third of people in the UK voted for them!
What percentage do you think is enough to win a vote?
> Which would mean just over half the full members didn't or don't want him? Hardly a majority leader, he just has more than the rest individually.
If you're going to come up with "facts" like that then the Conservatives shouldn't be in power because only a third of people in the UK voted for them!
What percentage do you think is enough to win a vote?
Post edited at 12:08
5
2
In reply to krikoman:
wasn't it much closer to a quarter of the electorate ? Your point still stands of course..
wasn't it much closer to a quarter of the electorate ? Your point still stands of course..
In reply to krikoman:
You've both lost sight of the facts.... Corbyn won by a country mile!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015
The question is how popular he will be site the wider electorate.... we'll have to wait and see. I've got nothing against him, might even vote for him, but I do think some of his supporters are nuts, and misogyny seems to keep cropping up.
> If you're going to come up with "facts" like that then the Conservatives shouldn't be in power because only a third of people in the UK voted for them!
> What percentage do you think is enough to win a vote?
You've both lost sight of the facts.... Corbyn won by a country mile!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015
The question is how popular he will be site the wider electorate.... we'll have to wait and see. I've got nothing against him, might even vote for him, but I do think some of his supporters are nuts, and misogyny seems to keep cropping up.
Post edited at 13:16
1
In reply to krikoman:
What I'm pointing out is that jc is a long way from being universally popular within his party, never mind the electorate.
Incidentally I am in favour of PR, so at least people get a greater number of representatives they voted for.
What I'm pointing out is that jc is a long way from being universally popular within his party, never mind the electorate.
Incidentally I am in favour of PR, so at least people get a greater number of representatives they voted for.
1
In reply to summo:
Not really though, because all we really do know is that JC was first choice with nearly 50% of party members, we didn't need to know their second choices or the affiliate and registered supporters vote.
He might be more popular if the press and some of his party members, would let him get on with things instead of finding inane things to complain about, not bowing far enough, wearing the wrong poppy, etc.
Then there are always going to be people disappointed with the result then aren't there, unless it's unanimous then someone's upset.
It's what you do after that that makes the difference, you either rally behind your leader or you jump ship! Constant wingeing about how bad everything is doesn't help you or your cause.
If it boils down to winning at any cost or winning because of a belief in the party and what it stands for, then I'd prefer the latter.
I speak as a "traditional" labour voter who was so disillusioned with Blair I had to vote for the Liberals.
> What I'm pointing out is that jc is a long way from being universally popular within his party, never mind the electorate.
Not really though, because all we really do know is that JC was first choice with nearly 50% of party members, we didn't need to know their second choices or the affiliate and registered supporters vote.
He might be more popular if the press and some of his party members, would let him get on with things instead of finding inane things to complain about, not bowing far enough, wearing the wrong poppy, etc.
> Incidentally I am in favour of PR, so at least people get a greater number of representatives they voted for
Then there are always going to be people disappointed with the result then aren't there, unless it's unanimous then someone's upset.
It's what you do after that that makes the difference, you either rally behind your leader or you jump ship! Constant wingeing about how bad everything is doesn't help you or your cause.
If it boils down to winning at any cost or winning because of a belief in the party and what it stands for, then I'd prefer the latter.
I speak as a "traditional" labour voter who was so disillusioned with Blair I had to vote for the Liberals.
3
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Sorry I thought that's what I was saying
As to the electorate, it's probably going to swing on whether the media and the dissenters can keep up the deformation for the next 3-4 years.
It wouldn't surprise me if Alan Johnson doesn't end up as leader (which wouldn't be a bad thing) though there may be an interim before him.
I'd be looking around for another party if Kendall, Cooper or Burham were leader though.
> You've both lost sight of the facts.... Corbyn won by a country mile!
Sorry I thought that's what I was saying
As to the electorate, it's probably going to swing on whether the media and the dissenters can keep up the deformation for the next 3-4 years.
It wouldn't surprise me if Alan Johnson doesn't end up as leader (which wouldn't be a bad thing) though there may be an interim before him.
I'd be looking around for another party if Kendall, Cooper or Burham were leader though.
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
that's because UK doesn't grasp coalitions yet.
Why, does UK politics have to have two party politics, why can't an elected MP, who does not like or agree with their party leader, still not represent the opinion of their constituency?
What about representing the opinion of your electorate, even if it's different to your union funded party line?
I speak as someone who would rather have a hand chopped off than vote for labour, with or without blair.
> Then there are always going to be people disappointed with the result then aren't there, unless it's unanimous then someone's upset.
that's because UK doesn't grasp coalitions yet.
> It's what you do after that that makes the difference, you either rally behind your leader or you jump ship! Constant wingeing about how bad everything is doesn't help you or your cause.
Why, does UK politics have to have two party politics, why can't an elected MP, who does not like or agree with their party leader, still not represent the opinion of their constituency?
> If it boils down to winning at any cost or winning because of a belief in the party and what it stands for, then I'd prefer the latter.
What about representing the opinion of your electorate, even if it's different to your union funded party line?
> I speak as a "traditional" labour voter who was so disillusioned with Blair I had to vote for the Liberals.
I speak as someone who would rather have a hand chopped off than vote for labour, with or without blair.
Post edited at 17:16
1
1
In reply to summo:
Nice idea, but it doesn't usually work that way does it, nice in Nirvana but this is real life.
Ideally we'd have a parliament that was less confrontational, worked for the people, talked out the possibilities and then chose the best route, but where in the world does that happen?
How can you type this and then argue that JC shouldn't be leader, you can't have it both ways
> that's because UK doesn't grasp coalitions yet.
> Why, does UK politics have to have two party politics, why can't an elected MP, who does not like or agree with their party leader, still not represent the opinion of their constituency?
Nice idea, but it doesn't usually work that way does it, nice in Nirvana but this is real life.
Ideally we'd have a parliament that was less confrontational, worked for the people, talked out the possibilities and then chose the best route, but where in the world does that happen?
> What about representing the opinion of your electorate, even if it's different to your union funded party line?
How can you type this and then argue that JC shouldn't be leader, you can't have it both ways
1
1
5
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
I hear several, all coming form people who cannot debate the point , but who inevitably resort to personalising the debate.
I hear several, all coming form people who cannot debate the point , but who inevitably resort to personalising the debate.
2
1
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
I think you're right in your point in the OP, and that you and the person you're quoting aren't the only people to have been saying this, there have been a few political pundits talking about traditional Labour voters turning to UKIP for a while now.
You'd know this if you lived in the UK
> I hear several, all coming form people who cannot debate the point , but who inevitably resort to personalising the debate.
I think you're right in your point in the OP, and that you and the person you're quoting aren't the only people to have been saying this, there have been a few political pundits talking about traditional Labour voters turning to UKIP for a while now.
You'd know this if you lived in the UK
Post edited at 16:23
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...