UKC

/ Corbyn must stay

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Ciro - on 07 May 2018

Labour's best local election result since 1971.

16
Big Ger - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

God yes. I'm shooting myself in the foot by opposing Corbyn becoming PM.

3
MG - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> Labour's best local election result since 1971.

In what way? 

1
Postmanpat on 07 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Oh Jeremy Corbyn.... Go Jezzer!

2
FactorXXX - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> Labour's best local election result since 1971.

In London...

David Cohen - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

And still he comes behind 'don't know' when asked who would be best PM, May, Corbyn or Don't know.

As a classic former floating voter (Thatcher, Major, Blair, Blair, Blair, Cameron, Clegg) regarless as to the anti-Semitism problem in Labour I just couldn't vote for his policies and more importantly regardless as to the policy offering the Labour leadership team just doesn't appear to have the ability to manage and lead the party let alone the Government.

Being a government in waiting is more than waiting for the government to fall, it is actively demonstrating that you can actually run the country.

7
Eric9Points - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

Would I be correct in thinking you're talking rubbish in an attempt to be provocative or do you actually believe the bollocks that floats round Facebook like slicks of raw sewage?

4
Ciro - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

Yes, mostly being provocative. 

But if I was being serious, I would question why having made significant gains since he came in, a night where he merely consolidated that position should be seen as a reason to get rid of him, regardless of the shambles in power.

Were at a time when England is so politically polarised, with so many seemingly desperate to get out of Europe and the single market. I know Corbyn is no Europhile, but if brexit is your goal (and let's not forget over 50% of England voted for it) there's only really one party to vote for until it's set in stone. 

He seems to have done all right to me all things considered.. 

5
aln - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm shooting myself in the foot by opposing Corbyn becoming PM

Can I just vote for you shooting yourself? 

 

4
David Cohen - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

Why would you vote for Labour to secure Brexit? 

Robert Durran - on 07 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Why would you vote for Labour to secure Brexit?

In the current absence of a realistically electable anti-Brexit centrist party I think the best reason for voting for Corbyn is the hope that Brexit would flounder in the chaos of a Corbyn government and not actually happen.

4
Ciro - on 07 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Why would you vote for Labour to secure Brexit? 

You wouldn't, that's my point.

With the majority in England wanting brexit, the Tories can keep making a mess, and the English electorate will keep voting for them regardless. So long as they're "taking back control", everything else pales into insignificance.

David Cohen - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, and that's part of the reason for the increase of 4m ish votes (for an additional 4-6 seats) in the 2017 election but the next GE will be post Brexit.

If Labour want to take political advantage of the (in my view) likely serious damage Brexit will cause they have to start saying 'I told you so' now and opposing Brexit without a customs union / EEA arrangement.

They can't enable Brexit and then blame the mess on the Tories.

Si dH - on 07 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Yes, and that's part of the reason for the increase of 4m ish votes (for an additional 4-6 seats) in the 2017 election but the next GE will be post Brexit.

> If Labour want to take political advantage of the (in my view) likely serious damage Brexit will cause they have to start saying 'I told you so' now and opposing Brexit without a customs union / EEA arrangement.

> They can't enable Brexit and then blame the mess on the Tories.

They are already saying they would keep us in a customs union. Amounts to the same thing.

David Cohen - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Si dH:

HP?

The policy I have heard is that Labour are saying Brexit means leaving the CU.

john arran - on 07 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> HP?

> The policy I have heard is that Labour are saying Brexit means leaving the CU.

Quite telling that nobody's really sure what Labour policy really is on important matters such as the Customs Union. It's starting to seem like a 'strong and stable' opposition.

Or, more accurately, no real opposition at all on the issues that matter most right now.

Ciro - on 07 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> They can't enable Brexit and then blame the mess on the Tories.

The Tory party gave us the referendum, senior figures in the party campaigned for leave, senior figures in the party spouted outright lies in support of leaving such as the £350m a week extra for the NHS, their supporters voted us out of europe (labour voters were almost as pro remain as my party, the SNP) and they are the party delivering brexit.

Of course the mess that will ensue can be blamed on them.

4
Andy Hardy on 07 May 2018
In reply to aln:

> Can I just vote for you shooting yourself? 

If you've nowt to say, say nowt.

1
Bob Kemp - on 07 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

It's 'flexible ambiguity', apparently. And according to this article it works:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/labour-clarify-position-brexit-vote-share-leave-remain

I'm not sure how hedging one's bets, as it's otherwise known, squares with Corbyn's reputation as a politician of principle, but that's another question...

john yates - on 07 May 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Jezza is an old school Trot. He sees EU as a front for bankers and big business. Hence his virtual absence on the Remain ticket during the referendum. It’s an honourable and sustainable Left of centre position (Guardians Larry Elliott is withering in his book on the Euro/EU). But flexible ambiguity is just a bullshit description of someone who says one thing, believes in something else, and acts in the opposite way. 

2
Bob Kemp - on 08 May 2018
In reply to john yates:

If JC was really a Trot he'd be trying to destroy the Labour Party not leading it. He seems to have some shared ideas, that's all. 

captain paranoia - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> but if brexit is your goal (and let's not forget over 50% of England voted for it) 

Technically, they didn't.

72.21% of the electorate voted.

52.29% of votes cast were for Brexit.

That means 37.5% of the UK electorate voted for Brexit. In England, the figure was 38.9%

That excludes those not eligible to vote: those under age, EU citizens resident in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

1
Si dH - on 08 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> HP?

> The policy I have heard is that Labour are saying Brexit means leaving the CU.

Whats HP?

Their position since Feb is fairly clear (at a high level) - a customs union. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/labour-backs-staying-in-eu-customs-union-keir-starmer-confirms

Edited spelling 

Post edited at 06:58
David Cohen - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Si dH:

Which was described as 'total b0llocks' by the Shadow Chancellor.

Update. According to Emily Thornberry Sh Foreign Sec that Labour now want to stay in the Customs Union. How long this policy will last is an open market and I'm short.

Post edited at 07:15
summo on 08 May 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> If JC was really a Trot he'd be trying to destroy the Labour Party not leading it. 

His back bencher career was spent voting against his party leaders, perhaps he is trying a different tactic and he might just be really bad at being both a leader or a destroyer. 

summo on 08 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> How long this policy will last is an open market and I'm short.

Until McDonnells next interview where he will skirt around a concise response. 

summo on 08 May 2018
In reply to Si dH:

But this is Starmers problem he isn't pulling the party strings. He might have more ability than Corbyn, Abbott and Thornberry put together, but Labour's grand committee don't care about that. 

Ciro - on 08 May 2018
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > but if brexit is your goal (and let's not forget over 50% of England voted for it) 

> Technically, they didn't.

> 72.21% of the electorate voted.

> 52.29% of votes cast were for Brexit.

> That means 37.5% of the UK electorate voted for Brexit. In England, the figure was 38.9%

> That excludes those not eligible to vote: those under age, EU citizens resident in the UK.

We can exclude those who were not politically engaged enough to vote in the referendum, as they're unlikely to have become politically engaged enough to vote in a local election, and we can exclude those who were under age, because the vast majority of them still are.

Which leaves EU citizens, are they going to make a great difference? You're still going to be left with half of the English electorate who are interested in voting keen on the party that will deliver brexit, no matter how incompetent. 

Normal party politics won't resume until after we're out.

Bob Kemp - on 08 May 2018
In reply to summo:

I suppose some would have said he's doing a pretty good job of destroying the Labour Party, but the jury's still out on that.

krikoman - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In the current absence of a realistically electable anti-Brexit centrist party I think the best reason for voting for Corbyn is the hope that Brexit would flounder in the chaos of a Corbyn government and not actually happen.


Isn't that what's happening now under the Tories? I'm pretty certain there's no need for any Labour input for Brexit to fall apart.

2
Robert Durran - on 08 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> Isn't that what's happening now under the Tories? I'm pretty certain there's no need for any Labour input for Brexit to fall apart.

Maybe, but I think it is probably more likely that the tories tear each other apart first; once the shape of Theresa May's Brexit becomes clear, half her party are going to be extremely unhappy and it's hard to see her surviving.

fred99 - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> If JC was really a Trot he'd be trying to destroy the Labour Party not leading it. 

I think he's done a damn good job of screwing up the Labour Party already. Far too many people who would like to vote Labour have either stopped voting or have gone to other parties.

Under any other leader, the Labour Party would have stuffed the Conservatives every which way in the latest elections, but all they've managed to do is keep it roughly even, and make a few small gains (when you take the entire country into account).

2
krikoman - on 08 May 2018
In reply to fred99:

> Far too many people who would like to vote Labour have either stopped voting or have gone to other parties.

The recent election results don't support this theory though, do they?

1
fred99 - on 08 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

On the contrary, they do. The results obtained by Labour are quite poor when you take into account the state of the Conservatives.

Under any previous leader Labour would have thrashed the Conservatives pretty well everywhere, and not just done well in London.

2
Bob Kemp - on 08 May 2018
In reply to fred99:

I am currently trying to be very fair to Mr Corbyn and am waiting for more evidence... despite a horrible feeling  that you're right.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> Isn't that what's happening now under the Tories? I'm pretty certain there's no need for any Labour input for Brexit to fall apart.

Corbyn isn't even willing to give the Brexit house of cards a little push with his pinky.   All it would take is for Labour to vote to stay in the customs union.

David Cohen - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

See Zeno's dichotomy paradox. There comes a point in time when the absolute evidence is no longer necessary. (but let's not get into epistemology as I have a bottle or red wine in front of me and an empty house)

1
john yates - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

He’s what Lenin might have called a ‘useless idiot’ and yes he is making a good job st destroying the Labour Party. It is now increasingly the Momentum Party. They should be streets ahead of the Tories. May got elected on a bigger vote than Blair’s landslide in 1997. Merkel dreams of such numbers. 

1
john yates - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You’re not being fair to him. Just blind to his atavistic politics. It’s like being trapped in a time warp. Let’s all pogo to Clash songs. I suppose it’s all so old to some people it sounds new. 

1
john yates - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You’re not being fair to him. Just blind to his atavistic politics. It’s like being trapped in a time warp. Let’s all pogo to Clash songs. I suppose it’s all so old to some people it sounds new. 

1
Si dH - on 08 May 2018
In reply to summoand David Cohen:

> But this is Starmers problem he isn't pulling the party strings. He might have more ability than Corbyn, Abbott and Thornberry put together, but Labour's grand committee don't care about that. 

But you are wrong, at least on this specific point.

This is a full transcript of the Brexit speech that Corbyn gave (I think probably the biggest and most recent he has given the subject) the day after the Starmer interview that I linked above.

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-full-speech-britain-brexit/

I would suggest searching on the word ''customs" unless you really want to read it all. The key passage is:

"Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland."

The devil is in the detail but the key differentiator vs the Cons approach is in place.

Post edited at 19:15
Ciro - on 08 May 2018
In reply to fred99:

> I think he's done a damn good job of screwing up the Labour Party already. Far too many people who would like to vote Labour have either stopped voting or have gone to other parties.

Of course people are leaving, the party is going back to its more traditional political position, there are bound to be many who identified with New Labour moving away.

There are also people coming back (who left during the Blair years) and young people arriving, attracted by what's on offer.

Time will tell whether the net movement is positive or negative, but I don't think any of us can predict the outcome on the information we have so far. I'm somewhat sceptical that a significant English left still exists, but at least there's a left of centre party to vote for in England again, so we'll have a chance to find out...

 

krikoman - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Si dH:

Don't be bringing facts to the table FFS!!

David Cohen - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

You seem to labour under the illusion that the GE is determined by the number of votes cast: it is not, it is won and lost in a relatively small number of marginal seats.

In the last GE Corbyn's Labour won c. 4 million more votes than Gordon Brown and this resulted in an additional four (from memory) seats.

Labour need to win in places like Nuneaton, Swindon, Basildon, Worcester, in fact in any number of English regional towns, have a look at the map if you want to understand the scale of the challenge (and remember this was against the backdrop of the worst Conservative campaign in living memory).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40176349

If you really think that soft Tories are going to vote Labour in its current form I have a bridge to sell you.

Post edited at 21:27
David Cohen - on 08 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Or basic comprehension.

Negotiating a (indefinite article) CU is not the same as staying in THE CU.

Or reality.

In that Labour are not in office and therefore have no seat at the table.

 

john yates - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

If by traditional you mean Corbynite you are mistaken. That has only ever been the view of an extreme minority. Corbyn wants us to leave the EU, he does not want us to remain in the Customs Union as the CBI and the Banks want us to.  Labours manifesto, as many have said, was for a hard Brexit. The end of free movement, beloved of so many  fUKCers. Without that there is no soft exit. 

1
Ciro - on 08 May 2018
In reply to john yates:

No, by traditional I simply mean "left of centre".

Ciro - on 08 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> If you really think that soft Tories are going to vote Labour in its current form I have a bridge to sell you.

Don't be ridiculous. Why would I think that, and why would I want to see the English left give up and become the English right again?

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

Breaking news. There is no English 'left'.

2
krikoman - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Or basic comprehension.

Like if the recent local elections were translated to GE results we'd have a Labour government, so they don't need Swindon, Basildon or Worcester. If everyone voted the same, then Labour would win so why do they need anything more than what they got?

 

1
David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Are you serious?

You do realise that Labour needs a majority in the House of Commons, not a majority of the popular vote? 

summo on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Are you serious?

> You do realise that Labour needs a majority in the House of Commons, not a majority of the popular vote? 

Exactly. Eddie the eagle was a popular nice guy, but he was never going to win. Maybe he could be the next Labour leader. After all getting a cheer from a crowd off their faces at Glastonbury seems to make corbinites think 'jeremy' is pm material. 

Ciro - on 09 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> Exactly. Eddie the eagle was a popular nice guy, but he was never going to win. Maybe he could be the next Labour leader. After all getting a cheer from a crowd off their faces at Glastonbury seems to make corbinites think 'jeremy' is pm material. 

He gained 30 seats at the last election, if he does the same at the next one he'll be forming a coalition government.

You might not want him to be elected, but the idea that he's unelectable is up there with "brexit will give the NHS an extra £350million a week" in the bullshit stakes...

Post edited at 12:38
1
john arran - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

I suppose anyone could be electable if all of the others aren't!

doz generale - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

This is the motivation for brexit:

Tory:

Deregulation of employment to make the rich richer

Avoidance of EU anti corruption legislation so that the rich get richer

Ability to trade comprehensively with the US and adopt a profit making NHS so that the rich get richer.

To take back the bigot votes from UKIP

Labour:

To be free of EU legislation so that they can nationalise as much as possible. 

To fully reform unions without interference

To take back the bigot votes from UKIP.

summo on 09 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> He gained 30 seats at the last election, if he does the same at the next one he'll be forming a coalition government.

The election they claim they won? 

> You might not want him to be elected, but the idea that he's unelectable is up there with "brexit will give the NHS an extra £350million a week" in the bullshit stakes...

I'd say they've reach peak vote with their ideology. Plus he has also back tracked on many of his promises that he knew were simply unfundable. 

He is burning more bridges than his party are building. 

Post edited at 13:13
1
krikoman - on 09 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> The election they claim they won? 

 

The election they we told they'd be annihilated in, and Corbyn would be gone within a few days of the result.

 

summo on 09 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> The election they we told they'd be annihilated in, and Corbyn would be gone within a few days of the result.

Just because stayed doesn't mean it has benefited UK politics. They are hardly holding the Tories to account. 

Ciro - on 09 May 2018
In reply to summo:

Do you have any reason behind your assertion that they've reached peak vote, or are we expected to be convinced he's unelectable on your gut feeling?

To be Frank on 09 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

It's just a nonsense statement that he's made up, or heard somewhere, made up by someone else, on the web, media etc. in a feeble attempt to project himself as being incredibly knowledgeable.

1
summo on 09 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> Do you have any reason behind your assertion that they've reached peak vote, or are we expected to be convinced he's unelectable on your gut feeling?

You tell me. He promised the world last year, free this, nationalise that, wage rises, better pensions, more money for the NHS.. schools... etc.. It has since come to light there was not a  hope in hell they could fund those dreams without massive borrowing and/or tax rises for everyone. 

What new rabbit is he going to pull out of hat to lure in any new voters and convince people that when they admitted they couldn't afford their last manifesto, now they can?

He could win  but he will need to lead and engage with the media much more in person, not send his henchmen and women. But, then he would become the person he isn't. 

Post edited at 17:07
summo on 09 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> It's just a nonsense statement that he's made up, or heard somewhere, made up by someone else, on the web, media etc. in a feeble attempt to project himself as being incredibly knowledgeable.

Don't be bitter, just because you've drawn a non runner of a horse in the political sweepstakes. I voted lib dem, I understand your position. 

2
Ciro - on 10 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> You tell me. 

I'm not the one making assertions, I'm saying we don't know and can't know unless we wait and see.

> He could win [....]

So you're happy he's not unelectable?

 

summo on 10 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> So you're happy he's not unelectable?

If he started to lead, if he engaged with mainstream media in person, if he made his wishes financially viable... of course he is electable. 

krikoman - on 10 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> Just because stayed doesn't mean it has benefited UK politics. They are hardly holding the Tories to account. 


It benefits the people who want change, and who see Corbyn as the only way for that change to happen. People are sick and tired of not being included, that's partly what Corbyn stood for, which is part of the issue there is with Brexit, if you're supposed to be the listening party you can't simply change tack without going against what you said.

For many people it's been a choice between not voting and a Labour Tory Lite. I keep saying this, it's not about Corbyn it's about what he represents, which is a change from the usual shite. Lots of people don't understand this simple fact, they see Corbyn as some sort of populist figure and I think they shy away because of it, the fact is, it's about the chance of the change in politics he seems to advocating.

Big Ger - on 10 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

You seem to speak for a lot of people there, very magnanimous of you. How come these people didn't vote in Corbyn at the last election if they are so keen for change?

What were they not included in?

1
To be Frank on 10 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Remember this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/theresa-may-could-give-conservatives-200-seat-lead-labour-early/ ?

That didn't happen, did it?  I wonder why? Oh, lots of people must have voted Labour, considerably more than expected.

 

Did I tell you, Tories lose Trafford?

Big Ger - on 10 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

 

> That didn't happen, did it?  I wonder why? Oh, lots of people must have voted Labour, considerably more than expected.

It didn't happen as the Tories blew their chances by calling an election too soon after the last one, plus the referendum. Just because the Telegraph forecast something, doesn't mean it will come true.

 

> Did I tell you, Tories lose Trafford?

Yes, but Labour didn't win Trafford, so I fail to see what you're getting all excited about.

In  fact, the Tories gained Barnet, Basildon, Peterborough and Redditch, four councils, Labour only managed to gain three Kirklees, Plymouth and Tower Hamlets.

Post edited at 14:05
1
krikoman - on 10 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> You seem to speak for a lot of people there, very magnanimous of you. How come these people didn't vote in Corbyn at the last election if they are so keen for change?

How do you think he won two elections to become leader?

How has Labour the highest membership of any political party in Europe, is it because no one thinks he's worth voting for?

If you remember rightly Corbyn was about to be finished at the last GE, it was his farewell party because Labour was about to collapse, even a number of Labour MPs (Kinnock amongst then were pissed off this didn't happen). A lot of people didn't vote for him then because they were convinced by the media it was a waste of time.

> What were they not included in?

General life, a political voice. The forgotten, non-London people for starters, the disenfranchised, take your pick!!

Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice.

1
summo on 11 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> How do you think he won two elections to become leader?

Because he promised lots of free things?

> How has Labour the highest membership of any political party in Europe, is it because no one thinks he's worth voting for?

Because they changed the membership rules where for the price of a latte you could join and vote. I bet there are more Tories keeping Corbyn in that seat, than corbinites. 

> If you remember rightly Corbyn was about to be finished at the last GE, it was his farewell party because Labour was about to collapse, even a number of Labour MPs (Kinnock amongst then were pissed off this didn't happen). A lot of people didn't vote for him then because they were convinced by the media it was a waste of time.

Corbyn did not succeed at the last GE, the Tories and the lib dems campaigns were dismal and easily outclassed. 

> General life, a political voice. The forgotten, non-London people for starters, the disenfranchised, take your pick!!

You really think Corbyn has any connection with rural UK? He might buy some fruit at a posh Islington farmers market to make his jam, but he is hardly a country boy. 

> Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice.

Exactly what was Corbyn's stance during the referendum? You are right people do perhaps want change, but do you really think Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott.... are capable of delivering It?

Post edited at 06:02
1
FactorXXX - on 11 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> Exactly what was Corbyn's stance during the referendum? You are right people do perhaps want change, but do you really think Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott.... are capable of delivering It?

I definitely wouldn't trust Abbott with change.

That's £9.90 for that Sir.
OK, here's a tenner.
Thanks, that'll be 100p change then. No, 10000p. 1p?

 

krikoman - on 11 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> Because he promised lots of free things?

He didn't promise anything to become the Labour leader.

> Because they changed the membership rules where for the price of a latte you could join and vote. I bet there are more Tories keeping Corbyn in that seat, than corbinites. 

So it should be expensive to have a say in our democratic process?

That's exactly why people voted for him, why should democracy be restricted to the people who can afford to pay?

> Corbyn did not succeed at the last GE, the Tories and the lib dems campaigns were dismal and easily outclassed. 

I didn't say he succeeded, but he wasn't roundly defeated, as we were told he would be, and with that defeat, he'd be off and  normal service would be resumed.

> You really think Corbyn has any connection with rural UK? He might buy some fruit at a posh Islington farmers market to make his jam, but he is hardly a country boy. 

It's not about where you live , it's about your attitude, you really do play dumb sometimes, simply because I don't live in Syria, is it impossible for me to understand the plight of the people there or want to do something about it?

> Exactly what was Corbyn's stance during the referendum? You are right people do perhaps want change, but do you really think Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott.... are capable of delivering It?

Corbyn's stance was, in general he was for the EU, there were things about it he didn't like and things that should be changed.

Yes I do, I think the Labour fiscal policy is much better than QE and austerity, it helps the people that need it most and it gives something back to the "bloke on the street" rather than the bankers.

 

2
Big Ger - on 11 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> How do you think he won two elections to become leader?

Due to him being the least worse option for most. Combine that with Labour being split between Blairites and hard lefties, the hard lefty won out.

> How has Labour the highest membership of any political party in Europe, is it because no one thinks he's worth voting for?

Answered above by Summo, but also factor in an appeal to students.

> If you remember rightly Corbyn was about to be finished at the last GE, it was his farewell party because Labour was about to collapse, even a number of Labour MPs (Kinnock amongst then were pissed off this didn't happen). A lot of people didn't vote for him then because they were convinced by the media it was a waste of time.

Ok, we'll see if they vote for him next time. Though you have to admit that his support isn't that good if people can be so easily convinced that he's not worth voting for.

> General life, a political voice. The forgotten, non-London people for starters, the disenfranchised, take your pick!!

LOL!! What about invisible pink unicorn riders?

> Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice.

Yes and they won. Corbyn may pick up some votes if he shows his true Eurosceptic nature.

 

Post edited at 07:53
2
summo on 11 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> He didn't promise anything to become the Labour leader.

People already knew what he stood for.

> So it should be expensive to have a say in our democratic process?

Since when has the internal politics of the Labour party or their union backers had anything to do with democracy?

> That's exactly why people voted for him, why should democracy be restricted to the people who can afford to pay?

Elections are free. Labour only became the biggest party when the funding changed, not because of Corbyn.

> I didn't say he succeeded, but he wasn't roundly defeated, as we were told he would be, and with that defeat, he'd be off and  normal service would be resumed.

Be honest. Labour were dancing around as though they'd won.

> It's not about where you live , it's about your attitude, you really do play dumb sometimes, simply because I don't live in Syria, is it impossible for me to understand the plight of the people there or want to do something about it?

Attitude? You really think Corbyn cares about rural affairs?

> Corbyn's stance was, in general he was for the EU, there were things about it he didn't like and things that should be changed.

Corbyn for the eu? Really? 

> Yes I do, I think the Labour fiscal policy is much better than QE and austerity, it helps the people that need it most and it gives something back to the "bloke on the street" rather than the bankers.

Isn't it to be funded by the same infinite growth that Gordon Brown used to end boom & bust?

Post edited at 08:11
summo on 11 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

I have to admire your loyalty, but the Labour party survives in spite of Corbyn, not because of.

It has loyal voters who are weathering the Corbyn storm knowing there are younger more able people coming through than are in the shadow cabinet now. It is people like Starmer, who are well briefed and knowledgeable, but also out there facing the media daily that are keeping the majority of Labour voters on side, hoping this era will pass. 

If Corbyn got rid of his numpty buddies off his shadow cabinet and replaced them with the talent in the party, they'd be flooring the Tories on a daily basis. PMQs, AQ, QT, today programme etc.. the Tories would be dreading their public appearance being held to account. 

2
thomasadixon - on 11 May 2018
In reply to summo:

Under those prior to Corbyn labour lost to the tories, and had fewer voters.  I'm not a fan of him myself, but I can't see any reason to believe that if someone else was in charge, following their previous line, they'd be doing better.

Seems to me they have a huge amount of anti-tory plus vote labour whatever support which never goes away, and Corbyn's added a bunch of new voters to those supporters.  Who are those labour for life people who complain about Corbyn voting for?  Labour, of course.

krikoman - on 12 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> I have to admire your loyalty, but the Labour party survives in spite of Corbyn, not because of.

So why was there such a surge in Labour membership since Corbyn became leader?

Your statement doesn't fit the facts, Labour was in the decline before Corbyn, because it was seen as Tory Lite. I understand you don't like him, but please lets try and be honest.

As for the unions, members are asked if they want to contribute to the Labour funding, it's not compulsory and you have to opt in. We've been through this before but you seem to want to make it an issue when it really isn't.

summo on 12 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> So why was there such a surge in Labour membership since Corbyn became leader?

Membership soared prior to his election as leader?

> Your statement doesn't fit the facts, Labour was in the decline before Corbyn, because it was seen as Tory Lite. I understand you don't like him, but please lets try and be honest.

Perhaps because no one wanted Gordon Brown, the man who end boom and bust, as PM in 2010. Also people disliked Labour because of Blair's greed and power grabbing?

> As for the unions, members are asked if they want to contribute to the Labour funding, 

What proportion of Labour party donations are from unions? How much did unite fund the last election campaign? Exactly how many unite members voted for McCluskey? Labour wouldn't see Xmas if the unions stopped funding it now. 

 

Post edited at 14:13
krikoman - on 12 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Due to him being the least worse option for most. Combine that with Labour being split between Blairites and hard lefties, the hard lefty won out.

Least worse for who exactly? You're making no sense at all, he obviously wasn't the least worse option for the members that joined because of him, either before the leadership election or since.

> Answered above by Summo, but also factor in an appeal to students.

Are students not allowed a say in our politics then?

> Ok, we'll see if they vote for him next time. Though you have to admit that his support isn't that good if people can be so easily convinced that he's not worth voting for.

Again you're repeating the fact they won and telling us they lost. They increase the number of Labour councillors by 79 up to 2,350, meanwhile the Tories lost 35 down to 1,332. So where's the lack of support? I't pretty obvious, if you care to look at the figures rather than quoting shite, that people do seem to think Labour are worth voting for, and that more people than last time seem to think that too.

> LOL!! What about invisible pink unicorn riders?

You don't think Brexit, was partly a protest vote then?

krikoman - on 12 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> Membership soared prior to his election as leader?

To try make sure he was elected, it has continued to increase, there are now around 500,000 members. Of course these are probably mainly Tories, I'd imagine. Maybe this is why their membership is falling so dramatically

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42565294

You seem to dismiss the fact these people made the effort and paid to become members, when most people can't even be arsed to change energy supplier and save themselves £100s. You do this to try and trivialise the fact thousands of people see the new Labour party as a chance for change. Something different from the years of greed and austerity, which have become the status quo and which you're trying to convince us is somehow the best we can expect.

 

At least Jezzer is promoting the building of our navy in the UK.

 

Post edited at 16:43
summo on 12 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

As I said before, nothing wrong with change. What I question is firstly if the change they propose would even partially work as most are cheap sound bites to lure in people who think they'll get everything for nothing. Secondly that Corbyn and the people he surrounds himself with have a cat in hells chance of delivering any of if. He doesn't pick capable people, but those who simply agree with him. 

Post edited at 16:44
1
Ciro - on 13 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> Because they changed the membership rules where for the price of a latte you could join and vote. I bet there are more Tories keeping Corbyn in that seat, than corbinites. 

Do you really believe there are more Tories in the labour party than there are in the Tory party, or are you just flinging mud and hoping it sticks?

Big Ger - on 13 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> Least worse for who exactly?

Labour voters.

> You're making no sense at all, he obviously wasn't the least worse option for the members that joined because of him, either before the leadership election or since.

Not for them, but they are not the majority of the party.

> Are students not allowed a say in our politics then?

No, of course not! (I can be just as silly as you, who said they were not allowed?)

> Again you're repeating the fact they won and telling us they lost. They increase the number of Labour councillors by 79 up to 2,350, meanwhile the Tories lost 35 down to 1,332. So where's the lack of support? I't pretty obvious, if you care to look at the figures rather than quoting shite, that people do seem to think Labour are worth voting for, and that more people than last time seem to think that too.

You reading invisible words again, you really should do something about that. What I actually said was; "Ok, we'll see if they vote for him next time. Though you have to admit that his support isn't that good if people can be so easily convinced that he's not worth voting for."

> You don't think Brexit, was partly a protest vote then?

Oh god, here again is what I said; 

You: "Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice."

Me: "Yes and they won. Corbyn may pick up some votes if he shows his true Eurosceptic nature."

How about you respond to what I actually write, not what the mouse in you r pocket tells you I have written?

 

1
krikoman - on 13 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Labour voters.

Well obviously not for all of them, given a level playing field and less aggressive media they might well have won the last GE.

As a Labour voter myself, it's simply not true, JC was voted in because he was the best candidate, he was elected a second time to prove that point!!

> Not for them, but they are not the majority of the party.

But the majority of the party no longer represented the electorate, or Labour voters. You seem to forget people we pretty pissed off with Blair and where he'd taken Labour. Some thing you've railed against in previous posts, and yet you're trying to convince us old New Labour were the good old days. Remember PPI?

> No, of course not! (I can be just as silly as you, who said they were not allowed?)

Your post sounded a bit derogatory, suggesting there was something wrong with Labour appealing to students.

> Though you have to admit that his support isn't that good if people can be so easily convinced that he's not worth voting for."

But they did vote, look at the figure FFS! Labour up, Tory down, it's really very simple.

> Oh god, here again is what I said; 

> You: "Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice."

> Me: "Yes and they won. Corbyn may pick up some votes if he shows his true Eurosceptic nature."

You've completely missed my point, but carry on telling me I don't understand.

 

krikoman - on 13 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> As I said before, nothing wrong with change. What I question is firstly if the change they propose would even partially work as most are cheap sound bites to lure in people who think they'll get everything for nothing. Secondly that Corbyn and the people he surrounds himself with have a cat in hells chance of delivering any of if. He doesn't pick capable people, but those who simply agree with him. 


What's so wrong with People's Quantitative Easing?

What's so wrong with, having a nationalised choice of energy supplier?

What's so wrong with building our Navy in the UK?

Jobs and taxes to us rather than money pissing out of the country?

To be Frank on 13 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> What's so wrong with People's Quantitative Easing?
> What's so wrong with, having a nationalised choice of energy supplier?
> What's so wrong with building our Navy in the UK?
> Jobs and taxes to us rather than money pissing out of the country?

Mister! Please, Mister, can I answer?
Is it 'NOTHING'?

 

1
krikoman - on 13 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> Mister! Please, Mister, can I answer?

> Is it 'NOTHING'?

Correct, but could you please call me, sir?

krikoman - on 13 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Only kidding, comrade will suffice

summo on 13 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> What's so wrong with, having a nationalised choice of energy supplier?

Who provides the money that buys all the shares back?

> What's so wrong with building our Navy in the UK?

The UK can now, provided it does not breach eu defence contract directives, so only security sensitive elements can be UK built, the remainder must be tendered out. You are pro EU aren't you?

Is that shipbuilding  or buliding?  

Edit. Doesn't Corbyn want to cut defence spending?

> Jobs and taxes to us rather than money pissing out of the country?

It's great in theory, but I don't think the shadow cabinet as it stands could deliver a pizza, never mind their manifesto. 

Post edited at 14:24
1
summo on 13 May 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> Do you really believe there are more Tories in the labour party than there are in the Tory party, or are you just flinging mud and hoping it sticks?

I was being sarcastic as some very public members of the Tory party were caught joining. 

To be Frank on 13 May 2018
In reply to summo:

You're one of the most passionate EU leavers on here, you know, 'Take back control'.
Yet you seem perfectly happy for the UK to hemorrhage money to our European cousins for our railways, utilities etc.

"Who provides the money that buys all the shares back?"

You're just looking for obstacles here.  It's a fair question, but life is full of obstacles that we have to overcome to progress.

1
summo on 13 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> You're one of the most passionate EU leavers on here, you know, 'Take back control'.

Have I ever said that? No, not never. So please debate as an adult and don't accuse people saying stuff they haven't. 

> Yet you seem perfectly happy for the UK to hemorrhage money to our European cousins for our railways, utilities etc.

The people best able and willing to manage services should run them. As pro EU you can't mind sharing the ownership and management?

> "Who provides the money that buys all the shares back?"> You're just looking for obstacles here.  It's a fair question, but life is full of obstacles that we have to overcome to progress.

Obstacles..  you either have the money or you don't? The amount of investment promises he made on education/NHS etc, plus nationalisation, student loans, public sector pay rises...  I'd say that is a fair obstacle, that requires a financial plan that balances and can't simply be dived into hoping for the best. 

1
Big Ger - on 13 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> Well obviously not for all of them, given a level playing field and less aggressive media they might well have won the last GE.

Agreed not for all of them. What do you think was the "un-level" playing field? With the Tories doing their impression of a headless chicken, how much more help do you want?

> As a Labour voter myself, it's simply not true, JC was voted in because he was the best candidate, he was elected a second time to prove that point!!

He beat Owen Smith, hardly a serious or substantial candidate in the second election. It may only have been Corbyn's euro-scepticism which won him the day.

> But the majority of the party no longer represented the electorate, or Labour voters. You seem to forget people we pretty pissed off with Blair and where he'd taken Labour. Some thing you've railed against in previous posts, and yet you're trying to convince us old New Labour were the good old days. Remember PPI?

Oh god, you are at it again, I have never tried to convince anyone that Bliar was anything other than a disaster for Labour.

> Your post sounded a bit derogatory, suggesting there was something wrong with Labour appealing to students.

No, I was merely pointing out that Corbyn gained a great deal of support from students with his promise to cancel, (a promise he's now  withdrawn, ) to end tuition fees.

> But they did vote, look at the figure FFS! Labour up, Tory down, it's really very simple.

They didn't vote in sufficient numbers to make a difference, it's really very simple.

> You've completely missed my point, but carry on telling me I don't understand.

Until you show some coherence in your thinking, I will. Explain again how your comment 

Is in any way not addressed by  exchange;

> You: "Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice."

> Me: "Yes and they won. Corbyn may pick up some votes if he shows his true Eurosceptic nature."

1
Kristof252 - on 13 May 2018

I wouldn't trust a man who has most probably eaten out Diane Abbott. Bleughhh!

1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.