Oldham byelection and impact on Jeremy Corbyn

[Domh245]

*Suggestion for Mods*

Perhaps a thread renaming is in order? We seem to have stopped talking about Oldham a while ago!

 

[SteveP29]

Now I thought that Ed Millibands Labour did have some credibility and I was pleased about that. Showed that there was some choice and it came down to policies and in particular costs associated with those. I would never even think of voting Labour now with McDonnell as the Shadow Chancellor.

Unfortunately, I think that Miliband's Labour were anything but. They seemed to offer broadly the same policies as the Tories, except for a lot of half hearted pledges on things that were concerning to the electorate, that wouldn't have been implemented if they'd been elected. what choice is that?

In Corbyn, there is now a clear alternative. They have 5 years to get their policies fine tuned. As said earlier in the thread, why wouldn't anyone want to live a relatively stress free life?
If we have policies that benefit all (as Corbyn would like), rather than a very small selection of the population, why would people feel threatened by it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My comparison is that Corbyn wants to reduce the Royal Navy to almost nothing - just like Hitler

He wants to reduce the army into almost nothing - just like Hitler

He wants to reduce the Royal Air Force into little more than a small charter airline - just like Hitler

We know that the Army has put it on record that they will Mutiny if he attempts to cut their numbers down even more. Personally, I shall be most amused if he ever gets in as he will be the first Nuclear Capable Prime Minister of this land that wants to get rid of them, yet he'll still have to write the LOLR

So all of the History I was taught at school was a load of bull**** then?
That I was told that almost from the day he was elected in 1933, he began building the army, navy and air force to numbers above and beyond those of the first world war

 

[backontrack]

You must be on the far far left if you think the Guardian and BBC are right-wing...

I wouldn't call myself far far left at all, but I would point to the recent Oldham By-election. When Labour won, the media focussed on the drop in turnout despite the fact that Labour took voters away from the Tories and UKIP. Look at how the BBC handled the Scottish Referendum, too! They antagonised the SNP whenever they could.

I don't agree with Corbyn. I don't want women-only carriages (although he's only said he'll consider them) and I don't want a lack of shoot-to-kill, but I don't want Cameron in either...

...I wonder who a protest vote would go to?

My guess is that Corbyn will stay in for a while, and then leave before the 2020 election, leaving someone else to become leader. Hopefully that won't be McDonnell, but somebody like one of the Eagles or someone that's left wing, but not too far over.

I felt as though I had to step in because slurs calling Corbyn a 'jihadist sympathiser' and 'Hitler' are too far. My point about North Korea was about how ridiculous these slurs are. Similarities can be drawn to everything, but there are also differences between things. We're different to Korea, and Corbyn's different to Hitler. You can't really liken the two.

Now let's stop scaremongering about the enemy and have a fair, equal, five years. Or, at least, let's have equal amounts of scaremongering. If the right can do it, than the left can too.

I'm not in line with Corbyn or Tony Benn - I'd like to stress that, seeing as I'll probably be labelled as though I am soon. I realise we need some tax, though we do need to tax the rich. Indeed, I don't support the 'printing' of money. I'd like a railway network that we can build on and improve - new trains in the North of England, new lines to places that shouldn't have lost them fifty years ago. I want to retain private schools, and I want to invest in the NHS. I support Syrian airstrikes, but I want to retain tax credits. I want to get rid of zero-hours contracts and create proper jobs. I want less on benefits and more in good jobs, and I want an end to the poverty so many are in. I don't want to take money away from the poor and starving, the disabled or sick, the depressed and the impaired, the young and the elderly. Does all this make me a 'leftie loony'? I think not.

 

[Dave1987]

Unfortunately, I think that Miliband's Labour were anything but. They seemed to offer broadly the same policies as the Tories, except for a lot of half hearted pledges on things that were concerning to the electorate, that wouldn't have been implemented if they'd been elected. what choice is that?

In Corbyn, there is now a clear alternative. They have 5 years to get their policies fine tuned. As said earlier in the thread, why wouldn't anyone want to live a relatively stress free life?
If we have policies that benefit all (as Corbyn would like), rather than a very small selection of the population, why would people feel threatened by it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So all of the History I was taught at school was a load of bull**** then?
That I was told that almost from the day he was elected in 1933, he began building the army, navy and air force to numbers above and beyond those of the first world war

First of all I do not agree with the references to Hitler at all. Hitler was pure evil and thankfully overly ambitious. Only people like Assad are worthy of comparison with one of the most vile human beings to live in the 20th century.

But I do not agree that Corbyn and McDonnell have political ideas and future policies that will benefit all. McDonnell is in favour of unlimited welfare, with no eligibility on those claiming, which I am very very against. He wants to hike up taxes as well which will punish working people. He wants to tax very rich people something like 60-70% of their salaries which will mean they will just leave the UK, then he will need to hike up taxes again on us idiots who decide to work for a living to pay for his massive spending plans.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Now let's stop scaremongering about the enemy and have a fair, equal, five years. Or, at least, let's have equal amounts of scaremongering. If the right can do it, than the left can too.

Let us not forget which party won the last General Election and actually had an overall majority. If five years of power was the aim of the Labour Party, they should have gone to the country, Scotland in particular, with the type of party and leader that would have had far more electoral appeal to achieve this aspiration, not just an appeal to certain left-wing ideologues.

 

[miami]

Let us not forget which party won the last General Election and actually had an overall majority.

A majority of 36.9% of the votes cast, a .8% point gain on 2010. Not as bad as Blair in 2005, but far worse than Major in 92. To imply the country moved en-mass to Blue like they did in 1979, or he other way in 1997, is shady to say the least.

As a country we tend to be unhappy with the government because most of us don't vote for them. The only exception was in 2010, when most of us voted for one of the two governing parties, and had (in my opinion) a very successful 5 year government.

If five years of power was the aim of the Labour Party, they should have gone to the country, Scotland in particular, with the type of party and leader that would have had far more electoral appeal to achieve this aspiration, not just an appeal to certain left-wing ideologues.

If Labour had won every seat in Scotland it wouldn't have made a difference.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If five years of power was the aim of the Labour Party, they should have gone to the country, Scotland in particular, with the type of party and leader that would have had far more electoral appeal to achieve this aspiration, not just an appeal to certain left-wing ideologues.

Labour lost in Scotland because they were seen as Diet Tory. They weren't left-wing enough, it wasn't that they were too left wing.

The Conservatives have an outright majority don't forget; the 56 SNP seats make no difference.

As for "appealing to the electorate", FPTP makes that irrelevant- Labour's vote share went up 2% from 2010. What they didn't do was appeal to the narrow band of small-c conservatives who reside in marginal constituencies. Possibly because of the scaremongering about the SNP (in England, at least; the Murdoch press were effusive in their praise in Scotland).

Ironically what really sunk Labour was the fact that the LibDem vote in the southwest collapsed, with the residents down there "punishing" the LibDems for the issues with the coalition government by, er, voting for the majority partner in the coalition government.

 

[mikeg]

What does the Oldham byelection tell us about Corbyn?

Absolutely nill, nada, gornisht.

Such second order elections, like byelections, EU elections and local elections are fought on two grounds:

1. Local issues, or issues pertaining to the subject matter of that specific election.
2. As a referendum on the government of the day.

We can't read much from the second ground, as the tories were never in the running for this seat realistically and as for the first factor, local issues do tend to dominate byelections by their nature of being for one MP (okay, all elections are like this in this country too but the focus is less on national issues and won't affect the formation of the government).

It was much less a referendum on Corbyn than a genuinely local campaign led by a local character. Byelections often produce funny results and there is generally little trend that could be read. The only thing that can be read into it is in the rare event that the sitting government claims an opposition seat or a marginal seat, this can be taken as a vote of confidence in the government of the day. But please don't read this as a vote of 'no confidence' in the Tories, as they were as I said never seriously in the running for this seat.

Aside: I voted Cooper, Kendall,Burnham, Corbyn. I put him last, as I believed that although he shared some of my principles, he was least likely to win an election. One has to think strategically, especially with the nastiness of the aristocratic/corporate controlled media in our 'democracy'. I do however remain united behind him and will not betray the party I joined eleven years ago, its principles or its people! I also believe that the Labour party remains the best party for the British proletariat, of which I am a member, also for the British youth of our country, both of which are systematically being destroyed by an underhand rewriting of the British social contract.

 

[St Rollox]

I thought Labour lost Scotland because they came across as Uber Unionists who were anti Scottish plus the Tories and LibDems very helpfully split the unionist vote.

 

[miami]

I thought Labour lost Scotland because they came across as Uber Unionists who were anti Scottish plus the Tories and LibDems very helpfully split the unionist vote.

Scotland was irelevant, worst case labour would have formed a coalition with SNP in exchange for something like another referendum in 2020 or a referendum on trident or another bribe for Scotland.

Labour lost because it didn't gain in England

And as for splitting the vote it serves labour ought for being against AV.

 

[St Rollox]

Scotland was irelevant

Don't we in Scotland know it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A majority of 36.9% of the votes cast, a .8% point gain on 2010. Not as bad as Blair in 2005, but far worse than Major in 92. To imply the country moved en-mass to Blue like they did in 1979, or he other way in 1997, is shady to say the least.

As a country we tend to be unhappy with the government because most of us don't vote for them. The only exception was in 2010, when most of us voted for one of the two governing parties, and had (in my opinion) a very successful 5 year government. If Labour had won every seat in Scotland it wouldn't have made a difference.

All that my posting said is that the Conservatives had an overall majority at the last General Election, which is normally used when referring to the seats won in the House of Commons and that is exactly what I meant to say. I just made a statement of fact and there was no implication whatsoever of the "move en masse" that you suddenly pretended that I had said in my posting.

Once again, you choose to put your own version on the same matter in the hope of making me look small.

 

[backontrack]

All that my posting said is that the Conservatives had an overall majority at the last General Election, which is normally used when referring to the seats won in the House of Commons and that is exactly what I meant to say. I just made a statement of fact and there was no implication whatsoever of the "move en masse" that you suddenly pretended that I had said in my posting.

Once again, you choose to put your own version on the same matter in the hope of making me look small.

I think it seems that you are adopting 'victim status' after you have been (rightfully) corrected. There was no aggression in Paul Weaver's posting which deserved this response. *

Let us not forget which party won the last General Election and actually had an overall majority. If five years of power was the aim of the Labour Party, they should have gone to the country, Scotland in particular, with the type of party and leader that would have had far more electoral appeal to achieve this aspiration, not just an appeal to certain left-wing ideologues.

So...because the Tories won the last election, they're allowed to scaremonger en masse (to use the phrase) against the opposition?

I'm not sure I buy that.

* I realise that this may be controversial, but here me out. I don't mean to offend you at all, on the contrary. It's just that it will start to appear that way for other posters.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it seems that you are adopting 'victim status' after you have been (rightfully) corrected. There was no aggression in Paul Weaver's posting which deserved this response.

Once again I find myself reminding forum members that when I made reference to an overall majority, that phrase cannot be clearer in its meaning in the House of Commons based on the number of seats held by each party.

If someone then goes off on a tangent in a posting response to mine, talking about something completely different, then I am at a total and utter loss as to why you now state that I was, to use your own phrase, "being (rightfully) corrected.

I consider myself to be uncorrected in this matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So...because the Tories won the last election, they're allowed to scaremonger en masse (to use the phrase) against the opposition?

I'm not sure I buy that.

* I realise that this may be controversial, but here me out. I don't mean to offend you at all, on the contrary. It's just that it will start to appear that way for other posters.

I will now respond to this other part of your posting by stating that any "scaremongering" to which you allude is naught to do with the Conservatives, as the present incumbent in the role of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is doing a very good job of fulfilling that particular role all on his own and regularly comes up with fresh ideas that even his Shadow Cabinet colleagues must despair of hearing, when they then have to make comments on the said matter.

 

[backontrack]

I know you think I 'went off on a tangent'. Did you choose not to understand my point? Are you just trying to belittle me in the hope that the question might go away? Well, it's not going to. Here it is again, clearer in the hope that for not just you, but for everyone else, it might be clearer to see.

Your response to my post of 'let's not have so much scaremongering' was met with your reply of 'the Tories won the last election'. So the Tories are allowed to scaremonger because they one the last election?

Then you deny that, by...er...mentioning that the Tories won the last election again.

As Paul Weaver has stated, the country didn't move en masse to the Tories. It was simply that they gained Lib Dem seats and (unfairly) threw all the money they got from media endorsements at the marginals in attempts to bully the locale into voting Tory which were, unfortunately, successful.

You can say that 'it was OK, they can because they won the last election' but that doesn't mean that they're entitled to behave badly at all.

I will now respond to this other part of your posting by stating that any "scaremongering" to which you allude is naught to do with the Conservatives, as the present incumbent in the role of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is doing a very good job of fulfilling that particular role all on his own and regularly comes up with fresh ideas that even his Shadow Cabinet colleagues must despair of hearing, when they then have to make comments on the said matter.

How are his scare tactics as severe as Cameron's? As said, let's have at least equal amounts of scaremongering before we can finally get none at all. Cameron has called Corbyn a 'jihadist sympathiser' and used the slur of stating that Corbyn thinks that 'the death of Osama Bin Laden was a disaster'. What Corbyn was saying was that Bin Laden should have been put on trial, and I agree with that. I think that makes my point very obvious.

I'll now probably be labelled as a 'Corbynista', which I'm not. In any case, I will end my post here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd agree with you backontrack. I'm really not sure what "scaremongering" Corbyn has been doing, quite what he's said (other than promising to cut back the power of Rupert Murdoch, natch) to be labelled a "radical".

Only in the poison politics of Flashman and his Buller Boys could someone saying "careful now" and "down with this sort of thing" be labelled a dangerous radical and someone deciding to bomb the crap out of another country to shore up his popularity be labelled a moderate.

As for scaremongering, I think the disgraceful bullying scandal that goes right to the very top in the Conservative Party shows just what Flashman and his cronies think of the little people or those who dare to say no to them. We're only going to get more of it when Flashman stands aside and his two Bullingdon buddies wrestle in the mud for the top job.

I will also repeat, again, that I am a long way from being a Corbynista. Though the nastier the insults from Flashman, the more I start to like the guy.

There is one positive about the Syrian bombing raids, though. Paul Staines has finally shut the heck up about "Bliar" being a "war criminal"...

 

[cjmillsnun]

Not all of us. I find many of Nigel Farage's views highly unpleasant, and he leads a party that - so far as I can tell - often seems unable to distinguish fact from fiction. But having different views from oneself does not make a person a 'vile human being'.

I've had the misfortune to meet the guy, he is a vile human being.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Your response to my post of 'let's not have so much scaremongering' was met with your reply of 'the Tories won the last election'. So the Tories are allowed to scaremonger because they one the last election? Then you deny that, by...er...mentioning that the Tories won the last election again.

As Paul Weaver has stated, the country didn't move en masse to the Tories. It was simply that they gained Lib Dem seats and (unfairly) threw all the money they got from media endorsements at the marginals in attempts to bully the locale into voting Tory which were, unfortunately, successful.

You can say that 'it was OK, they can because they won the last election' but that doesn't mean that they're entitled to behave badly at all.

I am unsure whether the moderators have removed certain postings, as I cannot trace some past postings to make reference to.

In response to the final paragraph above, politics has never ever been a game of niceties (Enoch Powell for the Conservatives and Dennis Skinner for the Labour Party never "pulled any punches" in past days) and any aspirational wish for an outbreak of good behaviour is doomed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let us not forget which party won the last General Election and actually had an overall majority. If five years of power was the aim of the Labour Party, they should have gone to the country, Scotland in particular, with the type of party and leader that would have had far more electoral appeal to achieve this aspiration, not just an appeal to certain left-wing ideologues.

Since it appears that some people still wish to mis-represent what my posting said, so to aid their memories, I have shown it in full above.

 

[St Rollox]

Scotland is gone now for the Labour Party.

 

[miami]

Scotland is gone now for the Labour Party.

Labour got 24.3% of the vote in Scotland, compared with 30.4% across the uk as a whole. That's more than the SNP got in 2010.

Do you think Scotland will be a one party "country" and vote SNP forever?
Do you think the tories will do well in the next election?
Do you think lib dems will recover from 7.9% of the vote?
Do you think SNP will split into two parties?

 

[St Rollox]

Labour got 24.3% of the vote in Scotland, compared with 30.4% across the uk as a whole. That's more than the SNP got in 2010.

Do you think Scotland will be a one party "country" and vote SNP forever?
Do you think the tories will do well in the next election?
Do you think lib dems will recover from 7.9% of the vote?
Do you think SNP will split into two parties?

Do you think the UK is on the way out?

 

[miami]

Do you think the UK is on the way out?

So assuming that there's no more shocking bribes for Scotland from Westminster and there's another referendum and there's an independence vote, why would the Scottish Labouf Party and the 25% of the electorate that vote for them disband?

 

[Spamcan81]

I've had the misfortune to meet the guy, he is a vile human being.

Either your interpretation of "vile" is different to the norm or you have never met a truly vile human being with whom to compare Mr Farage. He may have views which you find unpleasant but that doesn't make him vile in the way that Jimmy Saville, Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe etc. are.

 

[St Rollox]

So assuming that there's no more shocking bribes for Scotland from Westminster and there's another referendum and there's an independence vote, why would the Scottish Labouf Party and the 25% of the electorate that vote for them disband?

The best thing for SLAB would be to go independent in every sense.