Jeremy Corbyn

[Red-Robbo]

Unlike labour whose policy on Europe is?.

 

A free vote. Always has been. And Labour has only a tiny minority of pro-Brexit MPs,  so the divisions are not as relevant as they are in the party of government,  the party that called the referendum in the first place.

I'm afraid that attempt to muddy the waters has fallen flat.

[Barrs Court Red]

I thought Corbykins was anti EU?

 

Anyways, another joyously humorous week of Labour in fighting, u-turns and embarrassment.

Corbykins gone by next Summer, with David Miliband returning like a triumphant Roman general, sacrificing his brother at the next party conference as his entrance. The halls echo with approval and the U.K. has two worthwhile parties again.  

Meanwhile Corbykins is recalled to Russia, his  master Putin has him disposed of in the KGB ovens, a fate of many a failed agent.

[Red-Robbo]

Two Tory parties? Nein Danke! 

About as appealing as having a slug rubbed into your face.

[BCFC Jimmer]

Corbykins gone by next Summer, with David Miliband returning like a triumphant Roman general, sacrificing his brother at the next party conference as his entrance. The halls echo with approval and the U.K. has two worthwhile parties again.  

 

 

Two worthwhile parties, what on earth are you talking a about?! David Miliband is arguably more right wing than Tony Blair! If he led Labour we would have another situation where the two parties are practically the same.e

What did Thatcher say about Tony Blair? That he is the biggest success the Torie's have ever had! (Because he was ultimately one of them!)

In my opinion we need a socialist labour party that has fundamental differences to Tory politics otherwise whats the point?  Reading some opinion poles recently, I noticed that these 'crazy' Corbyn views like regulating energy companies and renationalizing railways are far more popular than people think and not controversial as the tories would make you believe.  It is the media that make people think socialist approaches are not a good idea - this is because most of the editors of the newspapers are protecting their businesses that rely on a free market!

 

[Calculus]

I thought Corbykins was anti EU?

 

Anyways, another joyously humorous week of Labour in fighting, u-turns and embarrassment.

Corbykins gone by next Summer, with David Miliband returning like a triumphant Roman general, sacrificing his brother at the next party conference as his entrance. The halls echo with approval and the U.K. has two worthwhile parties again.  

Meanwhile Corbykins is recalled to Russia, his  master Putin has him disposed of in the KGB ovens, a fate of many a failed agent.

Wouldn't have thought that Corbyn will be leader for the 2020 election, although for that to be true he'd have to resign. The mechanisms for getting rid of am incumbent Labour leader are very onerous. Can't see anything other than rows and infighting for the red team in the years ahead before he walks. Organisational cock ups, splits and lousy opinion polls will do for him, IMO. The influence of the diminishing press, always much blamed and over-rated by Labour for it's ills, will have only a very marginal effect.

If he does go, who replaces him is an interesting question. I think it's fair to say that the party members, who elect the leader, have already made their feelings known. They do not want a return to New Labour and the banana loving Miliband  would have no chance. Who then? There's the other 3 that stood this time, none of who inspired any confidence. Assuming Alan Johnson can't be persuaded to step up expect that Chuka and Dan Jarvis will be the main contenders. My money's on Jarvis, who is the Tories current bad dream...

[chipdawg]

Two worthwhile parties, what on earth are you talking a about?! David Miliband is arguably more right wing than Tony Blair! If he led Labour we would have another situation where the two parties are practically the same.e

What did Thatcher say about Tony Blair? That he is the biggest success the Torie's have ever had! (Because he was ultimately one of them!)

In my opinion we need a socialist labour party that has fundamental differences to Tory politics otherwise whats the point?  Reading some opinion poles recently, I noticed that these 'crazy' Corbyn views like regulating energy companies and renationalizing railways are far more popular than people think and not controversial as the tories would make you believe.  It is the media that make people think socialist approaches are not a good idea - this is because most of the editors of the newspapers are protecting their businesses that rely on a free market!

 

I think what we actually need is a political system which allows for the existence of more than 2 potential 'parties of power' so that the general populous feel they have a choice of more than just red or blue

[Red-Robbo]

Wouldn't have thought that Corbyn will be leader for the 2020 election, although for that to be true he'd have to resign. The mechanisms for getting rid of am incumbent Labour leader are very onerous. Can't see anything other than rows and infighting for the red team in the years ahead before he walks. Organisational cock ups, splits and lousy opinion polls will do for him, IMO. The influence of the diminishing press, always much blamed and over-rated by Labour for it's ills, will have only a very marginal effect.

If he does go, who replaces him is an interesting question. I think it's fair to say that the party members, who elect the leader, have already made their feelings known. They do not want a return to New Labour and the banana loving Miliband  would have no chance. Who then? There's the other 3 that stood this time, none of who inspired any confidence. Assuming Alan Johnson can't be persuaded to step up expect that Chuka and Dan Jarvis will be the main contenders. My money's on Jarvis, who is the Tories current bad dream...

I think you underestimate how far Labour CPs and the unions have shifted away from what are seen as establishment and austerity endorsing candidates. MPs cannot elect a leader alone, unlike in the Conservative Party,  and there is no way either of the men you'll mention will gain enough extra-parliamentary support to be leader.

The next leader is likely to come from the "soft left",  like Burnham. 

[BCFC Jimmer]

The influence of the diminsishing press, always much blamed and over-rated by Labour for it's ills, will have only a very marginal effect.

Apart from the fact that its common knowledge Blair won with new Labour because he became friends with Murdoch and agreed to implement free market ideas if elected.  It was one of the great victories of 'the establishment'. Don't ever underestimate the power that the media has.

Granted, it might be fractionally less these days with social media etc...

[BCFC Jimmer]

I think what we actually need is a political system which allows for the existence of more than 2 potential 'parties of power' so that the general populous feel they have a choice of more than just red or blue

In an ideal world, yes.  But at the moment Labour is our only real chance at thwarting the Tories.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

A free vote. Always has been. And Labour has only a tiny minority of pro-Brexit MPs,  so the divisions are not as relevant as they are in the party of government,  the party that called the referendum in the first place.

I'm afraid that attempt to muddy the waters has fallen flat.

Yes but that was last week.

and didn't they promise a referendum (along with a lot of other stuff) in their 2005 referendum?.

Same old knee jerk hysteria - sometimes you need to slow down and get some perspective man because its getting so dull.

Look - The party is going through a transition from pretty much being Tory lites to a more socialist party .  That is an incredibly dramatic contrast and one that we have not seen before.

Given the enormity of this change Corbyn has actually done remarkably well to keep a steady ship and for the most part keeping Labour MPs on board. I am afraid it is  incredibly narrow minded to nit pick at this early stage.

 

 

What is getting dull is your blind allegiance, you cannot defend a U turn such as this it is proof that this rag tag bunch of chancers are in no way fit to govern, thank god, I mean it's not as if Corbyn and his comrades haven't a lot of time to actually decide on policy, the polls have been telling him for months before the leader election that he would win, what is the saying 'failure to plan is planning to fail'.

The man is deranged he still believes that he has a mandate for his views on Trident, when his own party supported by the unions would not even sanction a debate at the conference.

[BCFC Jimmer]

Yes but that was last week.

What is getting dull is your blind allegiance, you cannot defend a U turn such as this it is proof that this rag tag bunch of chancers are in no way fit to govern, thank god, I mean it's not as if Corbyn and his comrades haven't a lot of time to actually decide on policy, the polls have been telling him for months before the leader election that he would win, what is the saying 'failure to plan is planning to fail'.

The man is deranged he still believes that he has a mandate for his views on Trident, when his own party supported by the unions would not even sancthaon a debate at the conference.nce

Blind allegiance for who?

There is no such thing as blind intelligence for me but at the moment Corbyn is a great alternative to the other identikit politicians - otherwise its free market and more privatization all the way.

Your comments like, "unfit to govern" and "chancers" is utter bollox and very patronising if you have a broad understanding of how the political system works.  Corbyn should be applauded for putting two fingers up at 'the establishment' and the normal way of thinking.  The way you are talking as if there is some normal procedure that politicians have a god given right to follow and have to say all the right things - how refreshing that he isn't like that!

People like you undermine his cause which is actually a very noble and unique one in the grand scheme of things!

I mean sure, disagree with some of his policies if you so wish (I actually don't agree with some of them).  But, stop the childish nit picking and come up with some more constructive arguments if you are hell bent on not liking him.

[Red-Robbo]

Yes but that was last week.

and didn't they promise a referendum (along with a lot of other stuff) in their 2005 referendum?.

What is getting dull is your blind allegiance, you cannot defend a U turn such as this it is proof that this rag tag bunch of chancers are in no way fit to govern, thank god, I mean it's not as if Corbyn and his comrades haven't a lot of time to actually decide on policy, the polls have been telling him for months before the leader election that he would win, what is the saying 'failure to plan is planning to fail'.

The man is deranged he still believes that he has a mandate for his views on Trident, when his own party supported by the unions would not even sanction a debate at the conference.

One union is pro-Trident Es, not "the unions" and the fact is that the Trident debate has been put to one side while the party carries out a review of options and opinions. It's not going away.

Of course, you may be right and there is massive public support for spending £100bn on having one nuclear submarine permanently in the north Atlantic as - in the words of the Air-Vice Marshall who commanded the Vulcan squadrons - "Britain's stick-on hairy chest",. but I doubt it. At least we'll never be nuked by Bermuda, right?

As for Europe,  the party always said their MPs would be free to campaign on whichever side of the debate they are on and that hasn't changed. Cameron initially wanted a party line on staying in and has had to u-turn in the face of backbench mathematics being against him.

As in the 90s, it's the Tories who are the party split fundamentally over Europe - add in tbe split over tax credit cuts, Heathrow,  and tbe naked maneuvering of his three self-appointed successors against each other  then you might legitimately ask will the 16-majority last longer than Corbyn does.

[The Gasbuster]

I think what we actually need is a political system which allows for the existence of more than 2 potential 'parties of power' so that the general populous feel they have a choice of more than just red or blue

You will recall that Clegg had his moment during the last parliament; with his "Alternative Vote" referendum.

Whilst not Proportional Representation; it was part way towards it.

The fact is that around 70% of people couldn't be arsed to vote. Of those that did, there was a clear majority voting to maintain First Past the Post.

A bit like the situation surrounding Red Trousers; many who criticise him didn't bother to vote.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

One union is pro-Trident Es, not "the unions" and the fact is that the Trident debate has been put to one side while the party carries out a review of options and opinions. It's not going away.

Of course, you may be right and there is massive public support for spending £100bn on having one nuclear submarine permanently in the north Atlantic as - in the words of the Air-Vice Marshall who commanded the Vulcan squadrons - "Britain's stick-on hairy chest",. but I doubt it. At least we'll never be nuked by Bermuda, right?

As for Europe,  the party always said their MPs would be free to campaign on whichever side of the debate they are on and that hasn't changed. Cameron initially wanted a party line on staying in and has had to u-turn in the face of backbench mathematics being against him.

As in the 90s, it's the Tories who are the party split fundamentally over Europe - add in tbe split over tax credit cuts, Heathrow,  and tbe naked maneuvering of his three self-appointed successors against each other  then you might legitimately ask will the 16-majority last longer than Corbyn does.

As for Trident, my point was that Corbyn believes that he still has a mandate for his view within his party, when clearly he does not, the party would not even countenance a debate on the matter.

Was a referendum on Europe in the 2005 labour party manifesto?.

 

[chipdawg]

You will recall that Clegg had his moment during the last parliament; with his "Alternative Vote" referendum.

Whilst not Proportional Representation; it was part way towards it.

The fact is that around 70% of people couldn't be arsed to vote. Of those that did, there was a clear majority voting to maintain First Past the Post.

A bit like the situation surrounding Red Trousers; many who criticise him didn't bother to vote.

AV was the Lib Dems first major mistake- let's have a vote on a different electoral system that even they didn't want. A proper debate on our electoral system is needed, though I agree apathy is high

[Lanterne Rouge]

And because he lost and threw his toys out of the pram boundary changes didn`t happen and we`re left with the same flawed constituency system we`ve always had.

[Red-Robbo]

 

 

As for Trident, my point was that Corbyn believes that he still has a mandate for his view within his party, when clearly he does not, the party would not even countenance a debate on the matter.

Was a referendum on Europe in the 2005 labour party manifesto?.

 

Sorry Es, misinterpreted your post.

My hunch would be that this "study" will find in favour of not renewing Trident and, yes, he will gain a majority on the NEC and at Conferences to implement that.

Not sure what point you're making about the referendum?  The Tories wanted one first? 14 years ago it was in no-one's manifesto other than UKIP. Surely they've got the bragging rights  there...

[Calculus]

Apart from the fact that its common knowledge Blair won with new Labour because he became friends with Murdoch and agreed to implement free market ideas if elected.  It was one of the great victories of 'the establishment'. Don't ever underestimate the power that the media has.

Granted, it might be fractionally less these days with social media etc...

It's not common knowledge at all - it's a common fallacy.

Blair won in 1997 because the Conservative party had become an unelectable basket case of a party, and I say that as a party member. Major had won in 1992 and in the next 5 years we had the ERM/black Wednesday fiasco, the Maastricht nightmare, rebellions and a leadership election not to mention any number of sleaze outbreaks. The Government had become incompetent, accident prone, run of steam and the country had had enough after 18 years rule. Meantime Blair and Brown ran very good campaigns, oiled their way round the City and business and generally did nothing to frighten the horses. All dear old Rupert did was attach himself to the obvious winning side.

Go forward to 2010 and it was obvious (to me at least) that things weren't going well and the country didn't like Gordon. Never one to attach himself to a loser, Murdoch came out for the Tories. Not mind you that the nation listened much - Cameron got most votes but not enough for a majority.

Finally, it's interesting to note that The Sun had a circulation of around 3m in 2010. Now it's slightly less than 2m. All the others show similar drops. These days with social media and more broadcast news and opinion there's no reason to think that those numbers won't further reduce.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Sorry Es, misinterpreted your post.

My hunch would be that this "study" will find in favour of not renewing Trident and, yes, he will gain a majority on the NEC and at Conferences to implement that.

Not sure what point you're making about the referendum?  The Tories wanted one first? 14 years ago it was in no-one's manifesto other than UKIP. Surely they've got the bragging rights  there...

on trident his view is not labour policy and a majority of labour MP's don't agree his view.

Labour manifesto 2005 promised a vote on the EU constitution and a rigorous campaign for an overwhelming yes vote, in 2007 Tony Blair further said, "We will have a referendum on the constitution in any event — and that is a Government promise.", now you know and I know that a no vote would have ultimately led on to an in out referendum, but the 2005/2007 promises didn't come about did they?.

[chipdawg]

And because he lost and threw his toys out of the pram boundary changes didn`t happen and we`re left with the same flawed constituency system we`ve always had.

No, they blocked the boundary changes over the Tories refusal to adhere to the coalition agreement over Lords reform. And those boundaries weren't 'electoral reform' they were rigging the existing game in favour of the conservatives- which to be fair Labour did in their years of power

[Red-Robbo]

on trident his view is not labour policy and a majority of labour MP's don't agree his view.

Labour manifesto 2005 promised a vote on the EU constitution and a rigorous campaign for an overwhelming yes vote, in 2007 Tony Blair further said, "We will have a referendum on the constitution in any event — and that is a Government promise.", now you know and I know that a no vote would have ultimately led on to an in out referendum, but the 2005/2007 promises didn't come about did they?.

I know the history,  I'm not sure the relevance to what's being discussed. A party changes policy under different leaders. You may remember the Tories vehemently opposing the minimum wage arguing that it would be "a disaster for Britain" and cost "millions of jobs".  Now Gideon is so keen on it, he increases it more than he needs to.

Labour current policy on Trident is that they are carrying out a review to set out options. That is what was agreed at Conference and why the issue was not debated. What Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband thought about Trident is irrelevant. 

[BCFC Jimmer]

It's not common knowledge at all - it's a common fallacy.

Blair won in 1997 because the Conservative party had become an unelectable basket case of a party, and I say that as a party member. Major had won in 1992 and in the next 5 years we had the ERM/black Wednesday fiasco, the Maastricht nightmare, rebellions and a leadership election not to mention any number of sleaze outbreaks. The Government had become incompetent, accident prone, run of steam and the country had had enough after 18 years rule. Meantime Blair and Brown ran very good campaigns, oiled their way round the City and business and generally did nothing to frighten the horses. All dear old Rupert did was attach himself to the obvious winning side.

Go forward to 2010 and it was obvious (to me at least) that things weren't going well and the country didn't like Gordon. Never one to attach himself to a loser, Murdoch came out for the Tories. Not mind you that the nation listened much - Cameron got most votes but not enough for a majority.

Finally, it's interesting to note that The Sun had a circulation of around 3m in 2010. Now it's slightly less than 2m. All the others show similar drops. These days with social media and more broadcast news and opinion there's no reason to think that those numbers won't further reduce.

I think you will find that despite their troubles the tories were still the favourites to be elected before Blair met with Murdoch - Labour also had troubles of their own. Whatever you think happened, its appalling that a prime minister can form a relationship with such a formidable power.

He struck again before the 2010 election.  It looked like Nick Clegg was surging ahead and then from nowhere the papers and news channels turned on him big time which allowed Cameron to get into number 10.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I know the history,  I'm not sure the relevance to what's being discussed. A party changes policy under different leaders. You may remember the Tories vehemently opposing the minimum wage arguing that it would be "a disaster for Britain" and cost "millions of jobs".  Now Gideon is so keen on it, he increases it more than he needs to.

Labour current policy on Trident is that they are carrying out a review to set out options. That is what was agreed at Conference and why the issue was not debated. What Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband thought about Trident is irrelevant. 

Well that answers a lot about Corbyn's labour party then, I thought Auntie Harriet and Mr Ed were still serving labour MP's, is that going to be policy then any labour MP with a differing view from Corbyn will be deemed irrelevant?.

 

[chipdawg]

Well that answers a lot about Corbyn's labour party then, I thought Auntie Harriet and Mr Ed were still serving labour MP's, is that going to be policy then any labour MP with a differing view from Corbyn will be deemed irrelevant?.

 

that's very much a 'post hoc fallacy' isn't it Es? Within any democratic entity not everyone will get their way. Indeed, in most examples of democracy, MOST won't get their way but the most popular choice will win out. If Labour are reviewing their Trident policy and that review ends with them being opposed to Tridents renewal, then Ed and Harriet's views would indeed by irrelevant, assuming the democratic process is followed

[Esmond Million's Bung]

that's very much a 'post hoc fallacy' isn't it Es? Within any democratic entity not everyone will get their way. Indeed, in most examples of democracy, MOST won't get their way but the most popular choice will win out. If Labour are reviewing their Trident policy and that review ends with them being opposed to Tridents renewal, then Ed and Harriet's views would indeed by irrelevant, assuming the democratic process is followed

of course not everybody will get their way but the views of a democratically elected MP should always be considered relevant, pre or post policy decision wise, otherwise the latest labour messiah would have been dumped years ago, now that's democracy.

 

[chipdawg]

of course not everybody will get their way but the views of a democratically elected MP should always be considered relevant, pre or post policy decision wise, otherwise the latest labour messiah would have been dumped years ago, now that's democracy.

 

But by holding a review of their position on Trident, they are taking their views into account. They may decide to dismiss them, but not after they've been given due consideration

[Red-Robbo]

Well that answers a lot about Corbyn's labour party then, I thought Auntie Harriet and Mr Ed were still serving labour MP's, is that going to be policy then any labour MP with a differing view from Corbyn will be deemed irrelevant?.

 

*Sigh*  No  it just mean's that different leaders have different policies,  you know, like happens in politics generally.

Every Conservative MP doesn't agree with everything Cameron does. Every SNP MP etc etc etc...

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

[Portland Bill]

As the thread title reads Jeremy Corbyn, I just thought I would mention how he walked all over Cameron at PMQ's today.

The tories looked like children getting  told off by a school teacher, they have no answer to someone who says it how it is.

[BCFC Jimmer]

As the thread title reads Jeremy Corbyn, I just thought I would mention how he walked all over Cameron at PMQ's today.

The tories looked like children getting  told off by a school teacher, they have no answer to someone who says it how it is.

I watched the highlights last night.  Still amazes me what a mockery most  MP's make of what is supposed to be a serious arena for debate.

There were Tory backbenches laughing when Corbyn was asking about the tax credit cuts - what is an incredibly serious issue.  Another lady in blue was also pointing and goading him.

Its behaviour that is actually not to much different from a football game.  Yet they are supposed to be running the f*cking country.  If I acted anything like them in my job I wouldn't last long.

[Calculus]

It has always been that way unfortunately and I don't expect it will change anytime soon. Ed Balls behaviour in the last parliament wasn't exactly an example to be proud of. Corbyn got the odd dig in and I'm fairly sure that in a few weeks time he'll get into it. Read any former PMs memoirs and they all agree that PMQs is the most worrying part of their week.

As for Tories laughing at Corbyn am sure it wasn't the tax credit issue that was been laughed at, but splits and the 2 week U turn fiasco and the expected rebellion by Labour MPs. Things aren't going well at Westminster for Corbyn and co at the moment and he needs to get a grip of the parliamentary party. Not so sure that he can - the overwhelming number of MPs didn't want him as leader and his history of rebellion makes it no easier. As things stand he and his front bench make an easy target for the Tories. Personally thought he was much better this time than his first outing - at least he followed up his questions, but he still didn't get anywhere against Cameron.