Guest MattP Posted 12 August 2015 Posted 12 August 2015 http://m.sputniknews.com/analysis/20150811/1025628905/Jeremy-Corbyn-Britain-politics.html I wouldn't give that to a six year old.
Guest MattP Posted 12 August 2015 Posted 12 August 2015 Who will that be? The SNP, who couldn't care a hoot about any voter south of the border? UKIP, whose hard-right immigration rhetoric alienates untold voters? The Lib Dems, who've been a car crash for five years? The country needs a strong Labour Party in opposition, and as a viable alternative government, now more than ever. Did you see the poll this week regarding the SNP? 26% of people in Scotland think they are doing a good job yet 60% will vote for them, it's nationalism levels that arent far off North Korea. The Lib Dems have picked up 10,000 new members since Farron was elected, if Corbyn is elected they could be making a huge push, the "Tory" baggage of Clegg and the moral righteousness of Hughes and Cable are in the bin, I wouldn't bet against a huge Lib Dem revival.
Dr The Singh Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 sorry thought molly was a bloke..Great chatup line dude,loved it,
Claridge Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Not quite everyone. They won 3 out of the last 5 elections and I doubt that was all down to spotty little students with berets and Ban the Bomb badges. This might be what the Daily Mail tells you, but it's no more reliable a simplification than the Mirror telling you that a Tory victory spells five more years of the needy being roundly shafted. There's nothing necessarily left wing about wasting tax payers' hard-earned cash, just as there's no guarantee that a Conservative government will be worse for healthcare, education etc. Both may have happened to a large extent in the past but I know plenty of intelligent left-wingers who get incredibly worked up about wasteful spending, and plenty of intelligent right-wingers who highly value healthcare and education. It doesn't have to be a straight choice between the two. Even Red Ken referred to himself as a monetarist, didn't he?! No they won the elections because Blair conned people into believing they would be good for business and 'prudent' with the economy.. They were however same old labour ,leaving the country in a far worse state financially.
Rincewind Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Seen where Corbyn could be deselected by his own party if he wins. That could also be disastyous for them as many people joined to vote for him who will now vote for other parties or not vote at all. I for one to not want Tory Mk 2.
Guest Bilo Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Seen where Corbyn could be deselected by his own party if he wins. That could also be disastyous for them as many people joined to vote for him who will now vote for other parties or not vote at all. I for one to not want Tory Mk 2. The Tory Mark 2 argument doesn't stand up. Look at Andy Burnham's manifesto a couple of pages back.
Sir Fynwy Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Blair saying the party might be destroyed by this election? If Tony's lips are moving he is lying. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mischa-wilmers/jeremy-corbyn_b_7968764.html
Guest Bilo Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Blair saying the party might be destroyed by this election? If Tony's lips are moving he is lying. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mischa-wilmers/jeremy-corbyn_b_7968764.html To be honest, I wish he'd just shut the **** up. There's a huge portion of the party who'll do the exact opposite of whatever he says.
leicsmac Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 No they won the elections because Blair conned people into believing they would be good for business and 'prudent' with the economy.. They were however same old labour ,leaving the country in a far worse state financially. You're oversimplifying the issue here. It isn't a matter of black and white, no matter how much you want it to be. inckleyfox has some good points. That's the problem with politics now - it's become far too much like following football teams. Was it always the same, or is that just a recent thing?
Buce Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Seen where Corbyn could be deselected by his own party if he wins. That could also be disastyous for them as many people joined to vote for him who will now vote for other parties or not vote at all. I for one to not want Tory Mk 2. Really? So, it's a free democratic vote as long as we vote for the 'right' candidate? I was leaning towards Burnham, but if this is true I will be voting for Corbyn.
fleckneymike Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 The problem Labour face is that in their desperate clamour to get us all not to vote for Corbyn they can't think of a single candidate we should vote for instead. In all the noise of why Corbyn would spell disaster they've been unable (just as with the election) to spell out who offers hope.
Benji Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 The problem Labour face is that in their desperate clamour to get us all not to vote for Corbyn they can't think of a single candidate we should vote for instead. In all the noise of why Corbyn would spell disaster they've been unable (just as with the election) to spell out who offers hope. Cameron
purpleronnie Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 You're oversimplifying the issue here. It isn't a matter of black and white, no matter how much you want it to be. inckleyfox has some good points. That's the problem with politics now - it's become far too much like following football teams. Was it always the same, or is that just a recent thing? It was certainly worse in the 80's, but it does seem to be echoing back to those times. Not sure how relevant Blairs criticism of Corbyn is, let's face it Blair was as close to a mock Tory as a labour leader has ever been, Having said that I think they'll be plenty of voters who will believe Labour are heading in the right direction if it's pissing Blair off.
johnny the fox Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0oXY4nDxE
Guest MattP Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 I wish all these Labour voters would have told us to ignore Blair when he was winning election after election. He should probably keep his mouth shut but it must be hard to watch something you care about be hijacked and destroyed in front of your own eyes.
Buce Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 it must be hard to watch something you care about be hijacked and destroyed in front of your own eyes. I'm sure the people of Iraq feel the same.
purpleronnie Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 I'm not sure if it's amusing or disheartening that Labour are trying to stop the most popular candidate from becoming their next leader, isn't that the whole point? The fact that there has been a huge increase in membership shows that he is offering something that is either attracting new labour voters or reawakening those who haven't been interested in Labour for decades. If a new leader doesn't attract new Labour voters they'll just keep losing. Or maybe that increase is due to people joining just to try and stop him winning.
Guest MattP Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Again Buce, he still won a huge majority four years after the Iraq war started. Why weren't all the Labour members, MP'S and voters telling us then not to vote for him as he was a Tory?
Sir Fynwy Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Who would Keir Hardie be voting for in this election?
Guest MattP Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 Who knows? He's been dead for 100 years. The World has changed massively. It's as pointless as someone asking who Nigel Farage would be voting for in a right leaning party in 2115. If I had to guess I'd say Keir would vote for Burnham, he certainly doesn't seem to hold beliefs that would ally himself with a London centric, terrorist sympathising protest politician, but we're all guessing.
MPH Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 I'm not sure if it's amusing or disheartening that Labour are trying to stop the most popular candidate from becoming their next leader, isn't that the whole point? The fact that there has been a huge increase in membership shows that he is offering something that is either attracting new labour voters or reawakening those who haven't been interested in Labour for decades. If a new leader doesn't attract new Labour voters they'll just keep losing. Or maybe that increase is due to people joining just to try and stop him winning. As a conservative voter i do find it intruiging as to why they appear to want to stop him from becoming their next leader. Is it because he's too normal? I cant help but think that if he was ever voted the Labour leader and if he ever became Prime minister then one of the first things he would do would be to try and reform the role of an MP to make it more aligned to the people that they are trying to represent. ( expenses, cutting back on wage increases above the line of inflation, ect). He reminds me alot of Bob Geldof, in so much as when the whole Band aid thing was going on, he would go to these meetings about helping the people in africa and these huge delicious meals would be laid on and he would say he couldnt eat a meal like that when there were people starving in Africa and would ask just for a plate of sandwiches.
Guest MattP Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 For what it's worth no Tory from the 1900's would support Cameron either, but it's a different World now and if the party wanted to survive as an electable force it had to change and it did. Labour now has to decide whether it wants to adapt to the modern World or chase failed policies from the last century. As usual with Labour I imagine they'll choose wrong. The fittest don't always survive, those who adapt to the climate do.
Guest Bilo Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 You could say the same about Churchill and Thatcher - given he opposed womens' suffrage, I think it's a fair bet that he wouldn't have backed Margaret Thatcher for leader.
Claridge Posted 13 August 2015 Posted 13 August 2015 For what it's worth no Tory from the 1900's would support Cameron either, but it's a different World now and if the party wanted to survive as an electable force it had to change and it did. Labour now has to decide whether it wants to adapt to the modern World or chase failed policies from the last century. As usual with Labour I imagine they'll choose wrong. The fittest don't always survive, those who adapt to the climate do. Labour is no longer fit for service.living so far in the past
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.