This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"Only those who joined Labour on or before 12 January will be able to vote in the leadership contest.
Anyone who joined after then will have to pay an extra £25 to become a "registered supporter" - and will get a two-day window in which to do so."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36778135
Anyone who joined after then will have to pay an extra £25 to become a "registered supporter" - and will get a two-day window in which to do so."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36778135
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
'Very important information, Unite Community and the genius that is Len McCluskey, has opened up a £2.00 registered supporters scheme with Unite Community. Meaning to be a Registered Supporter you don't have to pay £25.00 and if you joined the Party after January 12th you can vote.
Send these Blairites a message and sign up en - masses and take back control of socialism and democracy within our party. Quite frankly the £25.00 act is Elitist, snobbery at its best.
What Unite have done is Socialism.'
'Very important information, Unite Community and the genius that is Len McCluskey, has opened up a £2.00 registered supporters scheme with Unite Community. Meaning to be a Registered Supporter you don't have to pay £25.00 and if you joined the Party after January 12th you can vote.
Send these Blairites a message and sign up en - masses and take back control of socialism and democracy within our party. Quite frankly the £25.00 act is Elitist, snobbery at its best.
What Unite have done is Socialism.'
5
5
In reply to Baron Weasel:
What? The politically unelected genius, Len McClusky orchestrating politics from his puppet strings with no actual mandate to do so. Is this democracy? We seem to have forgotten along the way that the 172 actually had been elected and thus do have a mandate to make choices about how to work in opposition. Corbyn only seems to care about democracy when it suits him, has proved conclusively that he is incapable and impotent as leader of the opposition and should therefore think of how Labour can be a force for good; actually elected to run the country, pass laws and change for the good of all people!
James
What? The politically unelected genius, Len McClusky orchestrating politics from his puppet strings with no actual mandate to do so. Is this democracy? We seem to have forgotten along the way that the 172 actually had been elected and thus do have a mandate to make choices about how to work in opposition. Corbyn only seems to care about democracy when it suits him, has proved conclusively that he is incapable and impotent as leader of the opposition and should therefore think of how Labour can be a force for good; actually elected to run the country, pass laws and change for the good of all people!
James
14
7
In reply to james mann:
I don't think it's Len that's orchestrated this.
Surly as Labour are supposedly the party of the poor and the disenfranchised, £25 is a lot of money for people who are struggling to pay the rent or put food on the table, so how does this fit in that ethos?
Taking away the vote of the ordinary people is more of an affront to democracy than say only the well off can vote.
Maybe you agree that only people who can afford a voice should have one, I tend to think otherwise.
This only goes to show just how far out of touch these people are with their future electorate and prove the reason behind Corbyn in the first place.
The Unite Union way of securing a vote isn't something they've just invented, it was there before Corbyn was elected last time.
It's a method of giving MORE people a say in who's the leader, you might say a bit more democratic than being told you your leader is going to be.
I don't think it's Len that's orchestrated this.
Surly as Labour are supposedly the party of the poor and the disenfranchised, £25 is a lot of money for people who are struggling to pay the rent or put food on the table, so how does this fit in that ethos?
Taking away the vote of the ordinary people is more of an affront to democracy than say only the well off can vote.
Maybe you agree that only people who can afford a voice should have one, I tend to think otherwise.
This only goes to show just how far out of touch these people are with their future electorate and prove the reason behind Corbyn in the first place.
The Unite Union way of securing a vote isn't something they've just invented, it was there before Corbyn was elected last time.
It's a method of giving MORE people a say in who's the leader, you might say a bit more democratic than being told you your leader is going to be.
Post edited at 08:43
5
2
In reply to krikoman:
Labour long ceased being the party of the "working class", and £25 is not a lot to the average Islington lefty.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/labours-new-members-mostly-...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/23/labour-traditional-vo...
> Surly as Labour are supposedly the party of the poor and the disenfranchised, £25 is a lot of money for people who are struggling to pay the rent or put food on the table, so how does this fit in that ethos?
Labour long ceased being the party of the "working class", and £25 is not a lot to the average Islington lefty.
> A disproportionate number of Labour members who have joined since the 2015 general election are “high-status city dwellers” pursuing well-paid jobs, according to internal party data. The party is doing less well when it comes to attracting rural dwellers, elderly people and those struggling to make ends meet, leaked documents show.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/labours-new-members-mostly-...
> The rise of Ukip was a key reason why Labour was unable to return to Downing Street in last year’s election. The root of Ukip’s appeal was misdiagnosed by Labour MPs, who refused to accept that it was as much about identity as economics – an abstract feeling that the EU, immigration and rapid social change threatened a cherished identity, community and set of values. Ukip, which drew most of its votes from older, working-class and self-employed Britons, emerged from the 2015 general election as the main opposition in 120 seats, 44 of which have Labour MPs.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/23/labour-traditional-vo...
2
4
In reply to krikoman:
Thing is, no-one's doing this. Ordinary people, to use your phrase, have a vote in every general election. And ordinary people, to use your phrase again, don't belong to political parties.
And you think right; that's what general elections are for. No political party has to give a voice, or a vote, to anyone that isn't a member; and it's a mistake to equate the Labour party with ordinary people, to use your phrase again. Those ordinary people who used their vote at the last election gave us the administration we now have.
Assuming that 'ordinary people' are depressed, downtrodden workslaves is a view so out of touch as to be laughable. The 'ordinary people' don't want to get the bus, they want a car. And they don't want a Ford, they want a BMW. 'Ordinary people' are aspirational; they don't want to reach for the moon, they want to reach for the stars.
'Ordinary people' want to become extraordinary. Nobody wins an election by reminding 'ordinary people' that they are just like everyone else.
T.
> Taking away the vote of the ordinary people is more of an affront to democracy than say only the well off can vote.
Thing is, no-one's doing this. Ordinary people, to use your phrase, have a vote in every general election. And ordinary people, to use your phrase again, don't belong to political parties.
> Maybe you agree that only people who can afford a voice should have one, I tend to think otherwise.
And you think right; that's what general elections are for. No political party has to give a voice, or a vote, to anyone that isn't a member; and it's a mistake to equate the Labour party with ordinary people, to use your phrase again. Those ordinary people who used their vote at the last election gave us the administration we now have.
Assuming that 'ordinary people' are depressed, downtrodden workslaves is a view so out of touch as to be laughable. The 'ordinary people' don't want to get the bus, they want a car. And they don't want a Ford, they want a BMW. 'Ordinary people' are aspirational; they don't want to reach for the moon, they want to reach for the stars.
'Ordinary people' want to become extraordinary. Nobody wins an election by reminding 'ordinary people' that they are just like everyone else.
T.
9
3
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
I'm an ordinary person! So once again, I'm being told I'm something someone else wants me to be.
I can rephrase the question, "how can a single parent on benefits, get their say on who is leader of the Labour party?"
and should they be excluded from making that decision?
>'Ordinary people' want to become extraordinary. Nobody wins an election by reminding 'ordinary people' that they are just like everyone else.
And what better way to make them extraordinary than to give them a voice?
> Thing is, no-one's doing this. Ordinary people, to use your phrase, have a vote in every general election. And ordinary people, to use your phrase again, don't belong to political parties.
I'm an ordinary person! So once again, I'm being told I'm something someone else wants me to be.
I can rephrase the question, "how can a single parent on benefits, get their say on who is leader of the Labour party?"
and should they be excluded from making that decision?
>'Ordinary people' want to become extraordinary. Nobody wins an election by reminding 'ordinary people' that they are just like everyone else.
And what better way to make them extraordinary than to give them a voice?
Post edited at 09:19
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Which is the whole argument and why people voted for JC in the first place!!!
£25 is a lot to many of the people I know, that really thought they had a voice 9 months ago, since then it appears the PLP and the media have been trying their best to silence that voice.
This isn't about FAR left communists, it's about Labour voters, not having a party they recognised or listened to their needs. If you think the 250,000 that joined last time are rabid lefties then you have my sympathy.
> Labour long ceased being the party of the "working class", and £25 is not a lot to the average Islington lefty.
Which is the whole argument and why people voted for JC in the first place!!!
£25 is a lot to many of the people I know, that really thought they had a voice 9 months ago, since then it appears the PLP and the media have been trying their best to silence that voice.
This isn't about FAR left communists, it's about Labour voters, not having a party they recognised or listened to their needs. If you think the 250,000 that joined last time are rabid lefties then you have my sympathy.
5
5
In reply to krikoman:
This isn't about FAR left communists, it's about Labour voters, not having a party they recognised or listened to their needs. If you think the 250,000 that joined last time are rabid lefties then you have my sympathy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-socialist-workers-party...
This isn't about FAR left communists, it's about Labour voters, not having a party they recognised or listened to their needs. If you think the 250,000 that joined last time are rabid lefties then you have my sympathy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-socialist-workers-party...
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Ah! yes the terrible Greens we're all at threat from them aren't we?
Or it could be just ordinary folk getting a chance to voice their opinion and taking the option to vote for who they see as someone with integrity, when all around are not listening to them.
Even if the figures are true it's 1% of the people voting.
Ah! yes the terrible Greens we're all at threat from them aren't we?
Or it could be just ordinary folk getting a chance to voice their opinion and taking the option to vote for who they see as someone with integrity, when all around are not listening to them.
Even if the figures are true it's 1% of the people voting.
Post edited at 09:44
5
In reply to krikoman:
Not the only reason, surely. many voted as they saw Corbyn as representing "left Labour".
Ah well, can't trust Labour then obvs.
Nobody said it was anything to do with "FAR left communists", did they?
Ah so when I said; Labour long ceased being the party of the "working class", and £25 is not a lot to the average Islington lefty."
You thought I said; "the 250,000 that joined last time are rabid lefties.". That's odd.
> Which is the whole argument and why people voted for JC in the first place!!!
Not the only reason, surely. many voted as they saw Corbyn as representing "left Labour".
> £25 is a lot to many of the people I know, that really thought they had a voice 9 months ago, since then it appears the PLP and the media have been trying their best to silence that voice.
Ah well, can't trust Labour then obvs.
> This isn't about FAR left communists, it's about Labour voters, not having a party they recognised or listened to their needs.
Nobody said it was anything to do with "FAR left communists", did they?
> If you think the 250,000 that joined last time are rabid lefties then you have my sympathy.
Ah so when I said; Labour long ceased being the party of the "working class", and £25 is not a lot to the average Islington lefty."
You thought I said; "the 250,000 that joined last time are rabid lefties.". That's odd.
Post edited at 09:52
1
In reply to krikoman:
Ah! yes the terrible Greens we're all at threat from them aren't we?
Or it could be just ordinary folk getting a chance to voice their opinion and taking the option to vote for who they see as someone with integrity, when all around are not listening to them.
So the likes of The Socialist Worker weren't imploring their members to join the Labour Party with the sole intention of voting for Corbyn?
I'm a member of Unite and therefore eligible to vote. At first, there was no restrictions on that vote. However, once the Labour Party realised what was happening, you had to make a declaration that you were a Labour supporter that believed in their ideals, etc.
So, yes, I do believe that there was large scale infiltration by people other than 'ordinary folk'.
Ah! yes the terrible Greens we're all at threat from them aren't we?
Or it could be just ordinary folk getting a chance to voice their opinion and taking the option to vote for who they see as someone with integrity, when all around are not listening to them.
So the likes of The Socialist Worker weren't imploring their members to join the Labour Party with the sole intention of voting for Corbyn?
I'm a member of Unite and therefore eligible to vote. At first, there was no restrictions on that vote. However, once the Labour Party realised what was happening, you had to make a declaration that you were a Labour supporter that believed in their ideals, etc.
So, yes, I do believe that there was large scale infiltration by people other than 'ordinary folk'.
2
In reply to krikoman:
"Or it could be just ordinary folk getting a chance to voice their opinion and taking the option to vote (..), when all around are not listening to them."
That's the EU ref result right there in a nutshell...
"Or it could be just ordinary folk getting a chance to voice their opinion and taking the option to vote (..), when all around are not listening to them."
That's the EU ref result right there in a nutshell...
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
They have one, at a general election.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone should be able to have their say in who leads any and every political party. Life ain't like that, I'm afraid.
T.
> And what better way to make them extraordinary than to give them a voice?
They have one, at a general election.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone should be able to have their say in who leads any and every political party. Life ain't like that, I'm afraid.
T.
1
2
In reply to krikoman:
I don't know is true but it may be https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1001731679945880&set=a.32595294...
I don't know is true but it may be https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1001731679945880&set=a.32595294...
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
And then these 'ordinary folk' find themselves poorer than ever (already are, and we haven't left yet), with inevitably rising inflation, even worse prospects and worse services (does anybody really expect anything else in the next few years?), and with more of the same flavour of government they just voted their objection to (since the EU really has very little to do with the reasons why people's lives feel shit), but now without the moderating influence of the EU. Methinks many didn't really think through the anti-establishment message first, but then again they weren't really being encouraged to since ignorance certainly fed the goals of Murdoch and his ilk. What a very sad situation.
> "Or it could be just ordinary folk getting a chance to voice their opinion and taking the option to vote (..), when all around are not listening to them."
> That's the EU ref result right there in a nutshell...
And then these 'ordinary folk' find themselves poorer than ever (already are, and we haven't left yet), with inevitably rising inflation, even worse prospects and worse services (does anybody really expect anything else in the next few years?), and with more of the same flavour of government they just voted their objection to (since the EU really has very little to do with the reasons why people's lives feel shit), but now without the moderating influence of the EU. Methinks many didn't really think through the anti-establishment message first, but then again they weren't really being encouraged to since ignorance certainly fed the goals of Murdoch and his ilk. What a very sad situation.
3
In reply to FactorXXX:
I understand that conservatives on here were considering joining for £3 as well. I don't know if any did, or if that was just mischief.
I understand that conservatives on here were considering joining for £3 as well. I don't know if any did, or if that was just mischief.
2
In reply to kevin stephens:
I wonder if this is going to end up in court too. It seems very dodgy for an organisation to introduce a last minute rule charging members extra to vote in its leadership election and even dodgier to allow people to vote for 10 x less money if they align themselves to specific organisations on the left of the party.
Maybe it is time for Labour to implode like the LIberals did a hundred years ago and allow a new pro-Europe, centre ground party unaffiliated to trade unions to emerge that might actually give the Tories a run for their money.
I wonder if this is going to end up in court too. It seems very dodgy for an organisation to introduce a last minute rule charging members extra to vote in its leadership election and even dodgier to allow people to vote for 10 x less money if they align themselves to specific organisations on the left of the party.
Maybe it is time for Labour to implode like the LIberals did a hundred years ago and allow a new pro-Europe, centre ground party unaffiliated to trade unions to emerge that might actually give the Tories a run for their money.
Post edited at 10:30
3
In reply to kevin stephens:
It's simply to reduce the likelihood of another mass influx of non labour supporters with far left views from taking control of the leadership of their party. Unfortunately I think it'll fail as there are already so many members who voted him in first time around who'll be included in this vote.
No one should be paying "for a vote", if you're going to join the Labour party, as with any other political party it should be because you support the party and its vision. By which I mean the party as a whole, ie the majority of their elected MP's and their general political consensus which they have. That's what real "ordinary people" join parties for.
What happened with Labour is that by pure fluke some hard left socialist managed to get on the list of leadership contenders, mainly because other MP's thought, "well he's a crackpot who I'd never vote for myself but hey, lets just put him on for fairness". But what they didn't realise is that there is a group out there of a few hundred thousand leftists which have been rounded up on facebook and twitter who've discovered that for the price of a drink they could exploit the new voting rules to install any candidate they wish over the combined will of all of the real Labour members, people who have been members for years, not weeks.
In doing so they have decapitated the Labour party and placed their own head on it, with pretty predictably disastrous results. What they couldn't do of course is change the make up of the MP's, you know those Labour members who've all been voted in by millions of people collectively across the UK. So as it stands now, you have a "leader" who's only leader by job title now, he can't lead a party of MP's when 80% have no confidence in him.
So assuming he stays as leader you've now got a lame duck of an opposition in total dispensary "lead" by a guy who can't rely on the vote of his own party. He's so desperate to cling onto his job he doesn't seem to care if his party can actually do anything to bring about change and he's certainly got no hope what so ever of entering power.
Basically the will of a few 100k non labour supporters has ruined the hopes of millions more centre labour voters of ever having Labour in power for the foreseeable future.
It's simply to reduce the likelihood of another mass influx of non labour supporters with far left views from taking control of the leadership of their party. Unfortunately I think it'll fail as there are already so many members who voted him in first time around who'll be included in this vote.
No one should be paying "for a vote", if you're going to join the Labour party, as with any other political party it should be because you support the party and its vision. By which I mean the party as a whole, ie the majority of their elected MP's and their general political consensus which they have. That's what real "ordinary people" join parties for.
What happened with Labour is that by pure fluke some hard left socialist managed to get on the list of leadership contenders, mainly because other MP's thought, "well he's a crackpot who I'd never vote for myself but hey, lets just put him on for fairness". But what they didn't realise is that there is a group out there of a few hundred thousand leftists which have been rounded up on facebook and twitter who've discovered that for the price of a drink they could exploit the new voting rules to install any candidate they wish over the combined will of all of the real Labour members, people who have been members for years, not weeks.
In doing so they have decapitated the Labour party and placed their own head on it, with pretty predictably disastrous results. What they couldn't do of course is change the make up of the MP's, you know those Labour members who've all been voted in by millions of people collectively across the UK. So as it stands now, you have a "leader" who's only leader by job title now, he can't lead a party of MP's when 80% have no confidence in him.
So assuming he stays as leader you've now got a lame duck of an opposition in total dispensary "lead" by a guy who can't rely on the vote of his own party. He's so desperate to cling onto his job he doesn't seem to care if his party can actually do anything to bring about change and he's certainly got no hope what so ever of entering power.
Basically the will of a few 100k non labour supporters has ruined the hopes of millions more centre labour voters of ever having Labour in power for the foreseeable future.
11
3
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Jeremy Corbyn isn't hard left, you daft sausage. He opposes fracking? He thinks energy companies should be publicly owned? He supports the NHS and national education services? OH MY GOD IT'S STALIN WITH A BEARD.
It may suit certain people to paint left as "hard left" just because the Labour right is barely distinguishable from the Conservatives, but that doesn't make it so.
Jeremy Corbyn isn't hard left, you daft sausage. He opposes fracking? He thinks energy companies should be publicly owned? He supports the NHS and national education services? OH MY GOD IT'S STALIN WITH A BEARD.
It may suit certain people to paint left as "hard left" just because the Labour right is barely distinguishable from the Conservatives, but that doesn't make it so.
13
5
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Basically the will of a few 100k non labour supporters has ruined the hopes of millions more centre labour voters of ever having Labour in power for the foreseeable future.
And you think that flying in the Eagle will make the voters think, great she will make a fantastic prime Minister, I will dump the Tories and vote for her ?
(Or even Owen whatshisname)
If they were able to put in place a credible Labour name that the country could see as a Prime Minister, I might have agreed, as it is, Jeremy is not blocking anyone who is credible as a future PM, so no harm done until he does.
Basically the will of a few 100k non labour supporters has ruined the hopes of millions more centre labour voters of ever having Labour in power for the foreseeable future.
And you think that flying in the Eagle will make the voters think, great she will make a fantastic prime Minister, I will dump the Tories and vote for her ?
(Or even Owen whatshisname)
If they were able to put in place a credible Labour name that the country could see as a Prime Minister, I might have agreed, as it is, Jeremy is not blocking anyone who is credible as a future PM, so no harm done until he does.
2
In reply to Alyson:
You daft sausage: That's just the same as saying anyone who does not have confidence in Corbyn wining a general election and maybe more centre social democrat leaning is Tony Blair reincarnated and a that went with it. This seems to be the cry of many Corbyn supporters baying for de-selection of any Labour MPs who don't support Corbyn.
You daft sausage: That's just the same as saying anyone who does not have confidence in Corbyn wining a general election and maybe more centre social democrat leaning is Tony Blair reincarnated and a that went with it. This seems to be the cry of many Corbyn supporters baying for de-selection of any Labour MPs who don't support Corbyn.
1
4
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Er yeah. Except that if none of the registered supporters' votes had counted in that election the result would still have been the same.
http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-de...
> But what they didn't realise is that there is a group out there of a few hundred thousand leftists which have been rounded up on facebook and twitter who've discovered that for the price of a drink they could exploit the new voting rules to install any candidate they wish over the combined will of all of the real Labour members, people who have been members for years, not weeks.
Er yeah. Except that if none of the registered supporters' votes had counted in that election the result would still have been the same.
http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-de...
1
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
But that's just the point!!!
What Labour did, was to give the people a say in their leader, therefore empowering them in the running of the country, NOT FPTP bullshit, where my vote hasn't counted in twenty years!!
Don't you see the irony in your statement?
> They have one, at a general election.
> You seem to be of the opinion that everyone should be able to have their say in who leads any and every political party. Life ain't like that, I'm afraid.
> T.
But that's just the point!!!
What Labour did, was to give the people a say in their leader, therefore empowering them in the running of the country, NOT FPTP bullshit, where my vote hasn't counted in twenty years!!
Don't you see the irony in your statement?
2
In reply to kevin stephens:
I don't have confidence in Corbyn winning an election and I would support a more central social democrat leader, but that doesn't mean I think for a minute that Corbyn is hard left! It simply isn't true.
I don't have confidence in Corbyn winning an election and I would support a more central social democrat leader, but that doesn't mean I think for a minute that Corbyn is hard left! It simply isn't true.
3
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
Do you have a short list ?
> Eagle may be a stalking horse waiting for a more creditable candidate to emerge
Do you have a short list ?
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Quickly, Corbyn's policies are only hard left considering the ridiculously tiny and currently right-of-centre Overton Window in which this country's politics sits.
The real Labour members, people who have been members for years, not weeks, overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn the first time round. Look up the results if you can be bothered.
On these two points I totally agree with you. McDonnell (and I believe him to be the driving force here) doesn't care if the party splits, but only if his bit retain the existing infrastructure. I wish we hadn't gone to far to see a broad-based Labour party continue to represent many viewpoints from centre to "hard" left, but I don't think Corbyn, McDonnell, and the usefull idiots in Momentum want that.
I guess I'll have to get used to Conservative rule then. Cheers Jeremy.
Quickly, Corbyn's policies are only hard left considering the ridiculously tiny and currently right-of-centre Overton Window in which this country's politics sits.
> But what they didn't realise is that there is a group out there of a few hundred thousand leftists which have been rounded up on facebook and twitter who've discovered that for the price of a drink they could exploit the new voting rules to install any candidate they wish over the combined will of all of the real Labour members, people who have been members for years, not weeks.
The real Labour members, people who have been members for years, not weeks, overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn the first time round. Look up the results if you can be bothered.
> So assuming he stays as leader you've now got a lame duck of an opposition in total dispensary "lead" by a guy who can't rely on the vote of his own party. He's so desperate to cling onto his job he doesn't seem to care if his party can actually do anything to bring about change and he's certainly got no hope what so ever of entering power.
> Basically the will of a few 100k non labour supporters has ruined the hopes of millions more centre labour voters of ever having Labour in power for the foreseeable future.
On these two points I totally agree with you. McDonnell (and I believe him to be the driving force here) doesn't care if the party splits, but only if his bit retain the existing infrastructure. I wish we hadn't gone to far to see a broad-based Labour party continue to represent many viewpoints from centre to "hard" left, but I don't think Corbyn, McDonnell, and the usefull idiots in Momentum want that.
I guess I'll have to get used to Conservative rule then. Cheers Jeremy.
1
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I'd like to know where you get you evidence for this statement, because everyone I know who voted for JC, is, and has for some time, been at least broadly for Labour and NO the aren't Trotskyite Communists either.
The influx of support, wasn't specifically for JC, it was for a change from the Conservative Lite the party had become.
Why is this so difficult for people to get their head around, WE'D HAD ENOUGH!
> Basically the will of a few 100k non labour supporters has ruined the hopes of millions more centre labour voters of ever having Labour in power for the foreseeable future.
I'd like to know where you get you evidence for this statement, because everyone I know who voted for JC, is, and has for some time, been at least broadly for Labour and NO the aren't Trotskyite Communists either.
The influx of support, wasn't specifically for JC, it was for a change from the Conservative Lite the party had become.
Why is this so difficult for people to get their head around, WE'D HAD ENOUGH!
2
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I'll grant you that a lot of people (and MP's) jumped on the bandwagon when they saw the surge of support for him from new members joining up but I wonder how many of those existing members will still be backing him this time around? Most of the people I know who vote Labour normally and backed him originally are now saying he should go for the good of the party. I think if he wins this leadership contest it'll be mainly from the backing of new and recently new members bolstering his numbers.
And yes I agree, all those Corbynites (not suggesting you are one) will have to get used to Tory rule for a good while.
As a Conservative voter of course that's all fine for me, Jeremy all the way! However even I think that if anything, just for the sake of having a functional opposition he needs to go. If he doesn't and goes into a general election as leader then the party and its MP's will get slaughtered, maybe then he'll realise that he's not furthering his or any Labour supports cause by staying in power.
If it wasn't for a sense of fair play I'd quite like to see that happen just so I can see the looks on all the die hard Corbyn supporters faces as their party is reduced to a rabble forced to complete with the SNP for the status of official opposition.
> The real Labour members, people who have been members for years, not weeks, overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn the first time round. Look up the results if you can be bothered.
I'll grant you that a lot of people (and MP's) jumped on the bandwagon when they saw the surge of support for him from new members joining up but I wonder how many of those existing members will still be backing him this time around? Most of the people I know who vote Labour normally and backed him originally are now saying he should go for the good of the party. I think if he wins this leadership contest it'll be mainly from the backing of new and recently new members bolstering his numbers.
And yes I agree, all those Corbynites (not suggesting you are one) will have to get used to Tory rule for a good while.
As a Conservative voter of course that's all fine for me, Jeremy all the way! However even I think that if anything, just for the sake of having a functional opposition he needs to go. If he doesn't and goes into a general election as leader then the party and its MP's will get slaughtered, maybe then he'll realise that he's not furthering his or any Labour supports cause by staying in power.
If it wasn't for a sense of fair play I'd quite like to see that happen just so I can see the looks on all the die hard Corbyn supporters faces as their party is reduced to a rabble forced to complete with the SNP for the status of official opposition.
2
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Lots of them, I think - easily enough for him to win another leadership election with a big majority.
For example among the active party members who happen to be Angela Eagle's constituents:
https://wallaseybranchlabourparty.com/2016/07/06/branch-supports-jeremy-cor...
My local branch also had a meeting last week and passed a motion broadly supportive of JC and critical of those seeking to push him out. in their case the vote was: 49 for, 4 abstentions, 5 against.
> I'll grant you that a lot of people (and MP's) jumped on the bandwagon when they saw the surge of support for him from new members joining up but I wonder how many of those existing members will still be backing him this time around?
Lots of them, I think - easily enough for him to win another leadership election with a big majority.
For example among the active party members who happen to be Angela Eagle's constituents:
https://wallaseybranchlabourparty.com/2016/07/06/branch-supports-jeremy-cor...
My local branch also had a meeting last week and passed a motion broadly supportive of JC and critical of those seeking to push him out. in their case the vote was: 49 for, 4 abstentions, 5 against.
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
That really is the problem with this ridiculous dinosaur of a not-very-bright (to put it politely) Socialist Worker diehard, who has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing in 40 years, essentially a student activist grown old but not grown up. We have no effective opposition to call the government to account, and meaningful democracy depends on it. Parties that are too secure from challenge get corrupt, lazy and arrogant, it is the role of a proper opposition to prevent them from becoming that. We have no opposition, we have a collection of starving polecats in a sack, being thrown into the sea. I have just heard an interview from a woman member of the Labour NEC who was virtually in tears about the threats and intimidation coming from the Corbynites, right to the top level.
Cheekily, the SNP submitted an application, quoting Erskine May, to be recognised as the official opposition "the opposition must be able to provide an alternative government, should they be called upon to do so". As the SNP entirely correctly said, there is no prospect whatever of the Labour party being able to do that. Clearly mischevious, but they had a point.
The most graphic illustration of that was the 2 mirror image leadership elections. Within a few weeks, the Tories replaced their leader with a tough, clear-thinking, experienced, hard working figure, who they all immediately rallied round. Ironically given the supposed "progressive" nature of the Labour party, it was the Tories who provided the UK with its second woman PM. Labour on the other hand, and the nasty, vicious coterie of IRA supporters, unreformed Soviet activists and trots who surround Corbyn have been dragging out the death by a 1000 cuts endlessly and look to go on doing so for the foreseeable future.
A match between Theresa May and Corbyn would be a rout. But not for May.
> As a Conservative voter of course that's all fine for me, Jeremy all the way! However even I think that if anything, just for the sake of having a functional opposition he needs to go. I
That really is the problem with this ridiculous dinosaur of a not-very-bright (to put it politely) Socialist Worker diehard, who has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing in 40 years, essentially a student activist grown old but not grown up. We have no effective opposition to call the government to account, and meaningful democracy depends on it. Parties that are too secure from challenge get corrupt, lazy and arrogant, it is the role of a proper opposition to prevent them from becoming that. We have no opposition, we have a collection of starving polecats in a sack, being thrown into the sea. I have just heard an interview from a woman member of the Labour NEC who was virtually in tears about the threats and intimidation coming from the Corbynites, right to the top level.
Cheekily, the SNP submitted an application, quoting Erskine May, to be recognised as the official opposition "the opposition must be able to provide an alternative government, should they be called upon to do so". As the SNP entirely correctly said, there is no prospect whatever of the Labour party being able to do that. Clearly mischevious, but they had a point.
The most graphic illustration of that was the 2 mirror image leadership elections. Within a few weeks, the Tories replaced their leader with a tough, clear-thinking, experienced, hard working figure, who they all immediately rallied round. Ironically given the supposed "progressive" nature of the Labour party, it was the Tories who provided the UK with its second woman PM. Labour on the other hand, and the nasty, vicious coterie of IRA supporters, unreformed Soviet activists and trots who surround Corbyn have been dragging out the death by a 1000 cuts endlessly and look to go on doing so for the foreseeable future.
A match between Theresa May and Corbyn would be a rout. But not for May.
Post edited at 14:06
5
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Actually he only received 15% of the PLP vote, first time around.
Well we'll have to wait and see won't we, since the Conservative weren't going to win the last election, only time will tell.
It's precisely for those reasons and for democracy, that he should stay, a weaker man would have folded by now, and he's remained for the people who elected him, unlike your Mr. Cameron, who was going to stay whatever the outcome of the referendum.
Who's sense of fair play are you alluding to there, the electorate's?
> I'll grant you that a lot of people (and MP's) jumped on the bandwagon when they saw the surge of support for him from new members joining up....
Actually he only received 15% of the PLP vote, first time around.
> And yes I agree, all those Corbynites (not suggesting you are one) will have to get used to Tory rule for a good while.
Well we'll have to wait and see won't we, since the Conservative weren't going to win the last election, only time will tell.
> As a Conservative voter of course that's all fine for me, Jeremy all the way! However even I think that if anything, just for the sake of having a functional opposition he needs to go. If he doesn't and goes into a general election as leader then the party and its MP's will get slaughtered, maybe then he'll realise that he's not furthering his or any Labour supports cause by staying in power.
It's precisely for those reasons and for democracy, that he should stay, a weaker man would have folded by now, and he's remained for the people who elected him, unlike your Mr. Cameron, who was going to stay whatever the outcome of the referendum.
> If it wasn't for a sense of fair play I'd quite like to see that happen just so I can see the looks on all the die hard Corbyn supporters faces as their party is reduced to a rabble forced to complete with the SNP for the status of official opposition.
Who's sense of fair play are you alluding to there, the electorate's?
2
In reply to krikoman:
No. The way the world works isn't ideal, but that's the way it is. Sure, there might be better ways of doing things; sure, it would be great if it could be done in a more equal way; sure, it would be terrific if the idealists and the pragmatists thought the same way.
But don't hold your breath. We all, while striving for better, have to work with what we have both in politics and in life. And if what we have isn't what *you* want then that's a shame; but that's not going to cause anyone else a sleepless night. And unless your frustration turns into action and you join a party and push for change from within, then all your time spent getting annoyed with random internet strangers is just piss and wind, really. Like them, it may be better out than in but that's about all that can be said about it.
And with that, I'll leave things be here. Thanks for the conversation!
T.
> But that's just the point!!! ... Don't you see the irony in your statement?
No. The way the world works isn't ideal, but that's the way it is. Sure, there might be better ways of doing things; sure, it would be great if it could be done in a more equal way; sure, it would be terrific if the idealists and the pragmatists thought the same way.
But don't hold your breath. We all, while striving for better, have to work with what we have both in politics and in life. And if what we have isn't what *you* want then that's a shame; but that's not going to cause anyone else a sleepless night. And unless your frustration turns into action and you join a party and push for change from within, then all your time spent getting annoyed with random internet strangers is just piss and wind, really. Like them, it may be better out than in but that's about all that can be said about it.
And with that, I'll leave things be here. Thanks for the conversation!
T.
1
1
In reply to Simon4:
In your own words!!!
This is what people felt about the Labour party 10 months ago, JC has been trying to rejuvenate it ever since, against some pretty tough opposition. How many more people have become involved in politics since the run up to the leadership ballot 9 months ago?
And why is this a bad thing? Other than you don't like them or you think they are hard left anarchists?
If the Conservative party is so good why does it need an opposition?
> Parties that are too secure from challenge get corrupt, lazy and arrogant, ...
In your own words!!!
This is what people felt about the Labour party 10 months ago, JC has been trying to rejuvenate it ever since, against some pretty tough opposition. How many more people have become involved in politics since the run up to the leadership ballot 9 months ago?
And why is this a bad thing? Other than you don't like them or you think they are hard left anarchists?
If the Conservative party is so good why does it need an opposition?
4
In reply to kevin stephens:
I see that JC voted against having a secret ballot at the NEC meeting last night .
I thought secret ballots were a basic democratic principle to avoid corruption and threats.?
I see that JC voted against having a secret ballot at the NEC meeting last night .
I thought secret ballots were a basic democratic principle to avoid corruption and threats.?
2
1
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
I know you said you're going but please don't go
If this is true then we'd still be sending kids up chimneys and women wouldn't be voting.
I have joined the party and that's what I'm doing. But that doesn't stop injustice does it, that's the whole point. I'm not really annoyed either, more saddened by the way some people can brush aside the chances of the least empowered sections of our communities, with trite comments about them being loony lefties and bully boys.
Welcome.
I know you said you're going but please don't go
> No. The way the world works isn't ideal, but that's the way it is. Sure, there might be better ways of doing things; sure, it would be great if it could be done in a more equal way; sure, it would be terrific if the idealists and the pragmatists thought the same way.
If this is true then we'd still be sending kids up chimneys and women wouldn't be voting.
> But don't hold your breath. We all, while striving for better, have to work with what we have both in politics and in life. And if what we have isn't what *you* want then that's a shame; but that's not going to cause anyone else a sleepless night. And unless your frustration turns into action and you join a party and push for change from within, then all your time spent getting annoyed with random internet strangers is just piss and wind, really. Like them, it may be better out than in but that's about all that can be said about it.
I have joined the party and that's what I'm doing. But that doesn't stop injustice does it, that's the whole point. I'm not really annoyed either, more saddened by the way some people can brush aside the chances of the least empowered sections of our communities, with trite comments about them being loony lefties and bully boys.
> And with that, I'll leave things be here. Thanks for the conversation!
Welcome.
4
In reply to deepsoup:
I have little doubt of his pending victory in the leadership contest, but I still reckon his support not counting new sign ups will have been greatly depleted. I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out. Regardless though, the eventual outcome when it comes to the next general election will be the same.
As for yours and Angela's local branch assuming those branches aren't stuff full of new 'pay to vote' members then they are sowing the seeds of their own demise and I question their logic. By all means let a party change direction/policy but it has to be gradual or the people won't accept it.
It comes down to this. In a general election, they'll have to retain more or less all the votes they got last time, including those who might be deemed blairite voters and also somehow convince a lot of borderline Conservative and SNP voters to swing their way. Now, granted, he may have picked up a few 100k votes off the minor parties and non voters but that spread out across the whole of the UK amounts to sod all in the bigger picture.
An over simplification maybe but last time they lost by about 2 million votes, I doubt Corbyn is going to change the minds of a million tory's somehow.
I have little doubt of his pending victory in the leadership contest, but I still reckon his support not counting new sign ups will have been greatly depleted. I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out. Regardless though, the eventual outcome when it comes to the next general election will be the same.
As for yours and Angela's local branch assuming those branches aren't stuff full of new 'pay to vote' members then they are sowing the seeds of their own demise and I question their logic. By all means let a party change direction/policy but it has to be gradual or the people won't accept it.
It comes down to this. In a general election, they'll have to retain more or less all the votes they got last time, including those who might be deemed blairite voters and also somehow convince a lot of borderline Conservative and SNP voters to swing their way. Now, granted, he may have picked up a few 100k votes off the minor parties and non voters but that spread out across the whole of the UK amounts to sod all in the bigger picture.
An over simplification maybe but last time they lost by about 2 million votes, I doubt Corbyn is going to change the minds of a million tory's somehow.
1
In reply to neilh:
Did they vote on having a secret ballot, so it was democratic then wasn't it?
Or don't you think people should be able to be held accountable for how they voted?
There's a whole web site (and a big book or scroll) dedicated to recording how people vote.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Personally I'd be all for having it televised, then there's no spin and no issues with who said what.
> I see that JC voted against having a secret ballot at the NEC meeting last night .
> I thought secret ballots were a basic democratic principle to avoid corruption and threats.?
Did they vote on having a secret ballot, so it was democratic then wasn't it?
Or don't you think people should be able to be held accountable for how they voted?
There's a whole web site (and a big book or scroll) dedicated to recording how people vote.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Personally I'd be all for having it televised, then there's no spin and no issues with who said what.
2
1
In reply to Simon4:
JC is most certainly not SWP. In fact its not possible under labour rules to be in the SWP and join Labour. Being kind I can only assume you capitalised SW in error. The SWP, as ever, love to pontificate about Labour but its really irrelevant, just like your views from the far right.
http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/membership-terms-and-conditions
"You also confirm that you are not a member of any other registered political party (save the Co-operative party); and you are not a member of any organisation incompatible with membership of the Labour Party."
JC is most certainly not SWP. In fact its not possible under labour rules to be in the SWP and join Labour. Being kind I can only assume you capitalised SW in error. The SWP, as ever, love to pontificate about Labour but its really irrelevant, just like your views from the far right.
http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/membership-terms-and-conditions
"You also confirm that you are not a member of any other registered political party (save the Co-operative party); and you are not a member of any organisation incompatible with membership of the Labour Party."
2
1
1
2
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Totally agree. If he was any kind of a leader, he would see that there is no good outcome for the party with him at the helm and he could use his leverage - of which he has far too much, due to hundreds of thousands of clicktivists with no skin in the game - to negotiate a new leader who would support many of his policies, confirm the party's anti-austerity position, but who could also command the support of a majority of the PLP. Unfortunately, that's not on his and McDonnell's radar.
Yeah, I'm not. I like what little of his and McDonnell's policies they've trumpeted, but I severely mistrust their motives.
I think him and McDonnell have a long game in which they would see an immediate GE massacre as collateral.
The problem with a huge number of Corbyn's supporters, as you mentioned before, is if they crash the Labour party, I suspect they won't necessarily give a shiny shit. As I said, they've no skin in the game, so whilst I don't agree with retrospective changes in who can vote which can handily be remedied with cash, I think there should be a minimum number of constituency meetings or otherwise that members/supporters should have attended over a period of time to allow them to vote.
> I'll grant you that a lot of people (and MP's) jumped on the bandwagon when they saw the surge of support for him from new members joining up but I wonder how many of those existing members will still be backing him this time around? Most of the people I know who vote Labour normally and backed him originally are now saying he should go for the good of the party. I think if he wins this leadership contest it'll be mainly from the backing of new and recently new members bolstering his numbers.
Totally agree. If he was any kind of a leader, he would see that there is no good outcome for the party with him at the helm and he could use his leverage - of which he has far too much, due to hundreds of thousands of clicktivists with no skin in the game - to negotiate a new leader who would support many of his policies, confirm the party's anti-austerity position, but who could also command the support of a majority of the PLP. Unfortunately, that's not on his and McDonnell's radar.
> And yes I agree, all those Corbynites (not suggesting you are one) will have to get used to Tory rule for a good while.
Yeah, I'm not. I like what little of his and McDonnell's policies they've trumpeted, but I severely mistrust their motives.
> As a Conservative voter of course that's all fine for me, Jeremy all the way! However even I think that if anything, just for the sake of having a functional opposition he needs to go. If he doesn't and goes into a general election as leader then the party and its MP's will get slaughtered, maybe then he'll realise that he's not furthering his or any Labour supports cause by staying in power.
I think him and McDonnell have a long game in which they would see an immediate GE massacre as collateral.
> If it wasn't for a sense of fair play I'd quite like to see that happen just so I can see the looks on all the die hard Corbyn supporters faces as their party is reduced to a rabble forced to complete with the SNP for the status of official opposition.
The problem with a huge number of Corbyn's supporters, as you mentioned before, is if they crash the Labour party, I suspect they won't necessarily give a shiny shit. As I said, they've no skin in the game, so whilst I don't agree with retrospective changes in who can vote which can handily be remedied with cash, I think there should be a minimum number of constituency meetings or otherwise that members/supporters should have attended over a period of time to allow them to vote.
1
1
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Flouncer!
> And with that, I'll leave things be here. Thanks for the conversation!
> T.
Flouncer!
In reply to FactorXXX:
Personal view I voted for Corbyn because out of all the rest of the sorry bunch standing for leadership he was the only one who came across with integrity and the only one willing to help those who have been ground down by austerity. While the rest of the party went for conservative lite and trying to be all things to all people he was the only one whom I felt I could believe in. I am sure those who are against Corbyn would wish to believe that he was voted in by some sort of "fix" but speaking as "an ordinary voter" Corbyn came across as a breath of fresh air in a political arena where votes mattered more than principles and Labour's "policies" seemed like nothing more than waffle. It's about bloody time that the Labour party woke up to why its members voted Corbyn rather than trying to oust him out. Anyone standing against Corbyn will have to do a good job in convincing me that they are the man/woman for the job if they want my vote and that goes for a general election too.
Personal view I voted for Corbyn because out of all the rest of the sorry bunch standing for leadership he was the only one who came across with integrity and the only one willing to help those who have been ground down by austerity. While the rest of the party went for conservative lite and trying to be all things to all people he was the only one whom I felt I could believe in. I am sure those who are against Corbyn would wish to believe that he was voted in by some sort of "fix" but speaking as "an ordinary voter" Corbyn came across as a breath of fresh air in a political arena where votes mattered more than principles and Labour's "policies" seemed like nothing more than waffle. It's about bloody time that the Labour party woke up to why its members voted Corbyn rather than trying to oust him out. Anyone standing against Corbyn will have to do a good job in convincing me that they are the man/woman for the job if they want my vote and that goes for a general election too.
4
In reply to Alyson:
I really can't work out whether in a time where politics is increasingly hard to predict, Corbyn will appeal to ordinary voters disaffected by politicians of the last 20 years, or terrify them and simply be someone with a gift of preaching to the converted. I really don't know.
Personally, I admire his principles and his presentation of an alternative view of how things would be, but find him prickly and a bit cold.
I really can't work out whether in a time where politics is increasingly hard to predict, Corbyn will appeal to ordinary voters disaffected by politicians of the last 20 years, or terrify them and simply be someone with a gift of preaching to the converted. I really don't know.
Personally, I admire his principles and his presentation of an alternative view of how things would be, but find him prickly and a bit cold.
This is where Corbyn needs to win
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
Can he do it?
Many of the sitting Labour MPs don't believe he can
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
Can he do it?
Many of the sitting Labour MPs don't believe he can
In reply to kevin stephens:
Just seen that Corbyn has intervened and changed things, you can now vote if you have been a member of the party and a back bencher for 30+ years.
Just seen that Corbyn has intervened and changed things, you can now vote if you have been a member of the party and a back bencher for 30+ years.
2
In reply to kevin stephens:
Not sure why such despair with the labour right, no where near Tory. Completely different DNA.
Minimum wage
Human rights act
Equality act
Freedom of information
Halved nuclear arsenal
Banned fox hunting
Smoking ban
Scrapped section 28
I could go on and on and on. All achieved.
Not sure why such despair with the labour right, no where near Tory. Completely different DNA.
Minimum wage
Human rights act
Equality act
Freedom of information
Halved nuclear arsenal
Banned fox hunting
Smoking ban
Scrapped section 28
I could go on and on and on. All achieved.
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
We don't know, I think he can, but people telling us he can't don't KNOW either.
Or don't want to believe, this statement would have been reasonable if they hadn't been against him from the start, not all obviously but a good number, never wanted to work with JC without giving him a chance and without listening to the people who voted for him.
I'm amazed at the number of people who got involved with Labour to vote JC as leader not because they were loony left, or communist sleepers, but because they saw a chance to change things that might affect them, to have someone who listens to their problems, to give them a voice. How ever trite it might seem to read emails out in Parliament, theses are real people, with real issues, and Margaret from Bristol had her issue aired in the House of Commons!
I'm not saying everyone should get a chance to have their woes read out in the HoC, but it shows a little of what JC is trying to do. I think a lot of people have been waiting for some to listen to them, not just Labour supporters and NOT just the far left, this is about people, and it's about democracy, and it's about give the least vocal a voice.
If nothing else, then for a brief period he's given hope to some people that there are politicians who are in contact with the electorate, who care and who have some integrity; all hope is not lost.
> This is where Corbyn needs to win
> Can he do it?
We don't know, I think he can, but people telling us he can't don't KNOW either.
> Many of the sitting Labour MPs don't believe he can
Or don't want to believe, this statement would have been reasonable if they hadn't been against him from the start, not all obviously but a good number, never wanted to work with JC without giving him a chance and without listening to the people who voted for him.
I'm amazed at the number of people who got involved with Labour to vote JC as leader not because they were loony left, or communist sleepers, but because they saw a chance to change things that might affect them, to have someone who listens to their problems, to give them a voice. How ever trite it might seem to read emails out in Parliament, theses are real people, with real issues, and Margaret from Bristol had her issue aired in the House of Commons!
I'm not saying everyone should get a chance to have their woes read out in the HoC, but it shows a little of what JC is trying to do. I think a lot of people have been waiting for some to listen to them, not just Labour supporters and NOT just the far left, this is about people, and it's about democracy, and it's about give the least vocal a voice.
If nothing else, then for a brief period he's given hope to some people that there are politicians who are in contact with the electorate, who care and who have some integrity; all hope is not lost.
3
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
Some think it's worth 25 quid to support Corbyn
More proof that labour is now middle class based?
Some think it's worth 25 quid to support Corbyn
> Labour has received more than 180,000 applications to vote in the party's upcoming leadership election over the past 48 hours, it has said. Some 183,541 people paid £25 to become registered supporters and qualify for a vote in the contest between existing leader Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith. Mr Smith was nominated by 162 Labour MPs. The party ruled last week that Mr Corbyn did not need to get nominations.
More proof that labour is now middle class based?
In reply to krikoman:
I voted for Corbyn last time primarily because he offered opposition to austerity, while the rest of Labour seemed unwilling to take on board the lessons of the general election.
I'll not say his leadership's been great, but many people seem to have already forgotten the general election defeat and act as though Labour's current woes are entirely of Corbyn's making.
> I'm amazed at the number of people who got involved with Labour to vote JC as leader not because they were loony left, or communist sleepers, but because they saw a chance to change things that might affect them, to have someone who listens to their problems, to give them a voice. How ever trite it might seem to read emails out in Parliament, theses are real people, with real issues, and Margaret from Bristol had her issue aired in the House of Commons!
I voted for Corbyn last time primarily because he offered opposition to austerity, while the rest of Labour seemed unwilling to take on board the lessons of the general election.
I'll not say his leadership's been great, but many people seem to have already forgotten the general election defeat and act as though Labour's current woes are entirely of Corbyn's making.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...