Who do you support for Labour party leader?

[backontrack]

Go on then. Which "socialist" party (obviously not the Labour Party) do you think the writer of the post was referring to in the time period of his posting?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I refer you to the last three elected Labour Governments which did tend to move with the times and away from the arcane dogma espousement of eons ago to be a political party ready to accept the challenges faced in the start period of the 21st century,

We all saw what happened to the Warsaw Pact countries and their blind adherence to outdated socialist dogma.

Oh, come on, settle down. It's obvious that he meant the Labour Party...what does this post mean? What's the point of posting it?

Emily Thornberry has said that Labour's main foreign policy aim is now unilateral disarmament.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oh, come on, settle down. You're chuntering away over things so unnecessarily...what is there to gain in being so smart-alecky?

Perhaps you would prefer it if Seumas Milne used his talents in helping to rewrite my postings, as he seems to be quite good at rewriting speeches as demonstrated today at the Labour Party conference.

For a sheer matter of interest, are you aware that Milne seems to be somewhat selective in his socialist views, as both his son and daughter were educated at selective grammar schools.

Incidentally, how old were you during the period of the Warsaw Pact economies that you mention my comments that were made in my posting?

 

[cjmillsnun]

No, they simply appear more united.

May is a temporary PM. Watch closely as the next election approaches.

People said that about Thatcher
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But they're more united now than they've been under Cameron. That was his point.

Someone who gets it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, come on, settle down. You're chuntering away over things so unnecessarily...what is there to gain in being so smart-alecky?

Emily Thornberry has said that Labour's main foreign policy aim is now unilateral disarmament.

They are Donald Ducked then. Whilst many would like it, most people know that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Nuclear weapons exist.

 

[DarloRich]

I think as Labour people we all want the same things: A fairer, more equal and more just society. I simply don't think Corbyn, for all he may play well to the gallery, can deliver that for us.

They are Donald Ducked then. Whilst many would like it, most people know that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Nuclear weapons exist.

And as mad as the argument is: whilst other people hold such weapons ( and still more try to get hold of them) we must hold on to ours.

I have no problem with trying to build and international consensus to reduce these weapons but we cant do it alone and we should only give up our weapons when others do.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Emily Thornberry has said that Labour's main foreign policy aim is now unilateral disarmament.

That's one of the reasons why we will not get elected at the next election.

 

[backontrack]

Perhaps you would prefer it if Seumas Milne used his talents in helping to rewrite my postings, as he seems to be quite good at rewriting speeches as demonstrated today at the Labour Party conference.

For a sheer matter of interest, are you aware that Milne seems to be somewhat selective in his socialist views, as both his son and daughter were educated at selective grammar schools.

Incidentally, how old were you during the period of the Warsaw Pact economies that you mention my comments that were made in my posting?

Not the first time you've said that! Saying that I'm not old enough to make judgements about these things...well you're wrong. You've done it before, and you were just as wrong then. I may not be old enough to remember the Warsaw Pact, but that doesn't mean that your opinion on it is the only one I can take. Remember that...I may not have been around then, but that doesn't mean that your views require any less justification.

On your other point, I did not mention Seumas Milne once. You are the only person to have mentioned him on this page. In fact, having done a quick forum search, this post will be the first post by myself to contain the words 'Seumas' and 'Milne'. So I've no idea where you got that from.

FYI, I did actually know that interesting factoid about Milne. I think it's disgraceful that he can say that given the views he's espoused, though I still feel that, although I can't say I'm opposed to grammar schools (I don't really have an opinion on them), I feel that Theresa May lacks the mandate to make these changes. After all, the last PM was elected on the understanding that no more grammars would be instituted. Going back on that pledge without election seems backhanded.

But yes, I did know that - from Private Eye, actually. Maybe it's something that you, I and Jeremy Corbyn all have in common! Well, I imagine you found that fact out from the Eye - you speak like it, after all

 

[Busaholic]

No, they simply appear more united.

May is a temporary PM. Watch closely as the next election approaches.

And appearances can be deceptive. Fear and loathing are not confined either to the Labour Party or the drug-addled musings of Hunter S. Thompson. 'Sir' Craig Oliver's revelations about Cameron/May and the referendum will re-ignite the Civil War within the Conservative Party that was (temporarily) put to bed after June 23rd. My late father was treasurer of a local branch of the Tories and told me all sorts of stories about goings-on. He had by then resigned on principle, by the way.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I think as Labour people we all want the same things: A fairer, more equal and more just society.

Hear hear! Are you responding to Corbyn and McDonnell's call for unity?
(Ok, I know I've been selective in your quote, but I couldn't resist it!)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

We have fallen in the polls because we have an incompetent leader who fails to lead who is surrounded by clueless advisers churning out incoherent and unpopular policies that the electorate seem very keen to rubbish. Corbyn will deliver nothing but electoral disaster and the end of the Labour party as a credible political force.
.

Indeed, there's this spin from people like Milne and McDonnell that says it's all because of these nasty Blairites and a lack of loyalty and that were it not for that then everything would be fine and dandy.

In fact, they point to the polls and say before all this attempted coup, it was all heading the right way

It's absolute tosh. Of the 86 opinion polls taken in the last year, just three had a Labour lead and everyone of those was by 3% or less (or within the margin of error).

If last year was 1979, the next election may well be like 1983 and some of us know how well that went. I really fear for the Labour Party

 

[Jonny]

Indeed, there's this spin from people like Milne and McDonnell that says it's all because of these nasty Blairites and a lack of loyalty and that were it not for that then everything would be fine and dandy.

In fact, they point to the polls and say before all this attempted coup, it was all heading the right way

It's absolute tosh. Of the 86 opinion polls taken in the last year, just three had a Labour lead and everyone of those was by 3% or less (or within the margin of error).

If last year was 1979, the next election may well be like 1983 and some of us know how well that went. I really fear for the Labour Party

As a Northern, small-c conservative and a swing voter, I don't much care for hard-left Labour and I didn't think much of either contender, one way or the other. I secretly wanted the less electable one (Jeremy Corbyn) to win. Quite frankly, Labour is now the nasty party.

If Labour get in with either Oily Owen Smith (almost certainly not happening now that he's lost the contest) or Jeremy Corbyn, then their final year will be like a re-run of 1979. I just think that it's less likely that they will get in with Corbyn.

 

[fowler9]

I don't get this. Corbyn is not "Hard Left" unless anything left of Cameron and Blair is "Hard Left". Stalin and Kim Jong Un are "Hard Left". Are you trying to make a comparison?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can I put this another way, calling Corbyn "Hard left" is like calling Gove or Osbourne Neo Nazis.

 

[CarlSilva]

How deluded we were :roll:
.

You said it.

http://www.bacofoil.co.uk/

Yes, Blair was such a Tory, wasn't he?

What Tory would have:

1) Instituted the minimum wage
2) Double funding for every school child
3) Devolved power to Scotland and Wales
4) Seen through the Good Friday Agreement
5) Introduced paternity leave
6) Introduced the EHRC
7) Scrapped Section 28
8) Banned fox hunting
9) Passed New Deal legislation
10) Doubled overseas aid

...?

This is going to end up as a 'What have the romans ever done for us ?' debate isn't it ?

 

[HSTEd]

Isn't there a party with a left-ish economic policy without all the nutty KGB-front defence stuff from the 70s and 80s?

 

[backontrack]

Isn't there a party with a left-ish economic policy without all the nutty KGB-front defence stuff from the 70s and 80s?

Yes, but they could probably all fit in a phone booth.

The Greens, on the other hand...now that they've got competent leadership, I fully expect and hope that they have a surge in meaningful support.

 

[ExRes]

I should like to add my congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn for the support of the members of the Labour party, hopefully this will now ensure that there will never be another Labour Government, certainly in my lifetime

Perhaps someone could point me in the right direction in order to apply for a Shadow Cabinet job? I rather fancy being Shadow Minister for Mental Health because I feel that this would be a secure job with no probability of redundancy, either that or Shadow Minister for Filling Out Loan Applications, £500bn will need more than a call to Wonga I believe, I certainly don't want to be Shadow Minister for Explaining How It Will Be Paid Back though, although I would imagine it will by some form of austerity

Keep the red flag flying Jeremy

 

[northwichcat]

I don't get this. Corbyn is not "Hard Left" unless anything left of Cameron and Blair is "Hard Left". Stalin and Kim Jong Un are "Hard Left". Are you trying to make a comparison?

I agree the hard left sounds wrong. The far left of the Labour party would be more accurate. However, when people label a centre-left MP like Liz Kendall as a right wing Tory is it surprising there's exaggeration in the opposite direction as well?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, Blair was such a Tory, wasn't he?

What Tory would have:

1) Instituted the minimum wage
2) Double funding for every school child
3) Devolved power to Scotland and Wales
4) Seen through the Good Friday Agreement
5) Introduced paternity leave
6) Introduced the EHRC
7) Scrapped Section 28
8) Banned fox hunting
9) Passed New Deal legislation
10) Doubled overseas aid

...?

I could go on and on and on. I am no Blair fanboy. Old Labour he was not, but he was not a Tory either.

The Tories infiltrating the PLP so they'd keep pulling the strings of power - pull the other one.

You said it.
This is going to end up as a 'What have the romans ever done for us ?' debate isn't it ?

Is that all you have to say in response to the long list of achievements of Tony Blair's Government? All things that no Tory Government at the time would have done - and many of them also quite unpopular at the time. That list is what gives the lie to your rather silly and insulting assertion that Tony Blair 'was a tory in the wrong coloured tie. He was never a true labour man' Perhaps in the light of that evidence, you should accept that your claim was wrong?

Neil Kinnock was never a true labour man either, and the labour party lost it's way a bit. He never even supported the miners.

Neil Kinnock not true Labour? That must be rather surprising news to an awful lot of Labour members and supporters. Besides, why would a true Labour man have to support the miners? At the time they were making completely unreasonable demands for the Government to keep subsidising an economically unviable and environmentally disastrous industry (and often using pretty unethical tactics to boot). Or is your idea of a 'true Labour' man someone who always automatically supports strikers no matter how unreasonable their demands are? (My idea of a 'true Labour' person is rather different: It's more like, someone who always stands up for justice and fairness and for all human beings to have a reasonable chance to play a fulfilling part in a compassionate (but economically sound) society.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is going to end up as a 'What have the romans ever done for us ?' debate isn't it ?

In twenty years we will be having a "what has Corbyn ever done for us?" debate. And the answer will be nothing, nil, nada, because he won't ever have been a Prime Minister.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That isn't what the £3 army want and you know it.

All this talk about the "£3 army" really bugs me.
The numbers speak for themselves, Corbyn did not need the registered supporters to win in either leadership election. Sure it would have been close, and last years it would have gone to multiple rounds, but he has a majority of support in the membership as a whole, not just the "£3 army".

 

[Domh245]

All this talk about the "£3 army" really bugs me.
The numbers speak for themselves, Corbyn did not need the registered supporters to win in either leadership election. Sure it would have been close, and last years it would have gone to multiple rounds, but he has a majority of support in the membership as a whole, not just the "£3 army".

Although the fact that Owen Smith won with the pre 2015 Labour members suggests that there has definitely been some kind of entryism related to Corbyn. Call it whatever you like, but I can understand the feeling of longer term Labour members who talk about having their party snatched away from them.

 

[DarloRich]

All this talk about the "£3 army" really bugs me.
The numbers speak for themselves, Corbyn did not need the registered supporters to win in either leadership election. Sure it would have been close, and last years it would have gone to multiple rounds, but he has a majority of support in the membership as a whole, not just the "£3 army".

the point is the vote should be open only to those of us who are full members or TU affiliates via a union contributing to Labour funds. There should not be some shortcut to voting rights.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although the fact that Owen Smith won with the pre 2015 Labour members suggests that there has definitely been some kind of entryism related to Corbyn. Call it whatever you like, but I can understand the feeling of longer term Labour members who talk about having their party snatched away from them.

but we are just red tory/blairite/capitalist lickspittles so we don't matter.

 

[WelshBluebird]

the point is the vote should be open only to those of us who are full members or TU affiliates via a union contributing to Labour funds. There should not be some shortcut to voting rights.

Which is fine if you hold that view. But based on what has been reported, Corbyn still would be leader.
Really if you want to place any "blame" about Corbyn being leader, it should be put on the MP's who nominated him in the first place. You can't blame the membership for voting for who they want once they had been given the choice.

Although the fact that Owen Smith won with the pre 2015 Labour members suggests that there has definitely been some kind of entryism related to Corbyn. Call it whatever you like, but I can understand the feeling of longer term Labour members who talk about having their party snatched away from them.

So what, we don't allow any new members at all to any political party? Or we set a totally arbitrary time limit of how long you need to be a member before you vote or what?

but we are just red tory/blairite/capitalist lickspittles so we don't matter.

But we are just trots / socialists / SWP members / whatever so we don't matter.

At the end of the day, abuse is there on both sides and it is wrong regardless of where it comes from.
But I cant help feel that it isn't as widespread as it seems - it is very easy to take social media as being representative for everyone (indeed many of us on the left have made that mistake!), and while there does seem to be a proper with abuse on social media, I can't help but think the vast majority or Corbyn supporters are being mis-represented by the idea that they are somehow an "army" or are just there to abuse those who disagree with them. And Vice versa.

 

[Domh245]

So what, we don't allow any new members at all to any political party? Or we set a totally arbitrary time limit of how long you need to be a member before you vote or what?

Labour did try to set a limit on how long you had to be a member for, which caused a fair bit of upset if I remember rightly! It cannot be denied that under Corbyn, Labour membership has swelled. Whether this is because he is pulling members from the Greens, reinvigorating interest in those who had fallen out of love from Politics, or perhaps a sinister plot by Momentum or the Tories to see Corbyn re-elected. It is a difficult thing to decide, and I don't envy the people who have to make that decision. If it were up to me though, I'd perhaps consider some kind of weighted system that takes account of the length of a person's membership, the wishes of the Parliamentary party, etc, but thankfully for both Labour and Myself, I am not on the NEC, or even a member at all.

 

[cjmillsnun]

And as mad as the argument is: whilst other people hold such weapons ( and still more try to get hold of them) we must hold on to ours.

I have no problem with trying to build and international consensus to reduce these weapons but we cant do it alone and we should only give up our weapons when others do.

Exactly my view. Unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream. However a reduction worldwide is a possibility and something we should actively support.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Labour did try to set a limit on how long you had to be a member for, which caused a fair bit of upset if I remember rightly! It cannot be denied that under Corbyn, Labour membership has swelled. Whether this is because he is pulling members from the Greens, reinvigorating interest in those who had fallen out of love from Politics, or perhaps a sinister plot by Momentum or the Tories to see Corbyn re-elected. It is a difficult thing to decide, and I don't envy the people who have to make that decision. If it were up to me though, I'd perhaps consider some kind of weighted system that takes account of the length of a person's membership, the wishes of the Parliamentary party, etc, but thankfully for both Labour and Myself, I am not on the NEC, or even a member at all.

Regarding the limit, the main reason that caused such an issue was that even after they announced it, their website still stated that if you joined as a member you would get a vote. So people had paid up, and then after the fact, they had one of the "benefits" of being a member pulled from them.

If they are to properly introduce that as a policy of voting eligibility, it needs to decided upfront and properly advertised. As in, they need to say when you sign up you will not get a vote in any potential leadership election until you have been a member for 12 months. That would be the fair way of doing it.

As for why the membership has increased, granted this is just my personal anecdotes and I freely admit I am pretty much right in the middle of the "bubble" in terms of the demographic who has seemed to swing to Corbyn. But from what I can see you are pretty much right. The new members do seem to made up of 3 main groups. Firstly, those who supported a left leaning Labour in the past but drifted away during the New Labour years, secondly those who have been Green / Lib Dem / general lefty politics supporters in the past few years who now see Labour as a proper and legitimate left of centre choice (I fall into this category), and finally those who want to "seize" control of the party aka the SWP lot.

What numbers those different groups come in, tbh I have no idea. My own group of friends tend to match where I am - thought Labour was leaning a bit too far to the right and still unhappy about Blair / Iraq etc so voted for Lib Dems in 2010 (the first time I could vote) but got horrifically let down by them, wasn't that convinced by Milliband in 2015 but still almost did vote Labour but ended up voting Green (I am in Bath, a Tory / Lib dem swing seat, and as I wasn't going to vote for either of those I thought I'd vote with my conscious, and at the time Labour were not opposing austerity). I think that demographic also explains pretty well the number of new Labour members who got denied a vote due to "previously supporting another party".

ps - Sorry for the ramble, only just realised how long this post is now I have finished it!

 

[backontrack]

For a sheer matter of interest, are you aware that Milne seems to be somewhat selective in his socialist views, as both his son and daughter were educated at selective grammar schools.

So did Emily Thornberry.

 

[Busaholic]

So did Emily Thornberry.

And please don't ask Diane Abbot where her son was educated!

 

[backontrack]

And please don't ask Diane Abbot where her son was educated!

Or Shami Chakrabati, for that matter...

 

[northwichcat]

If your son/daughter is offered a grammar school place and you turn it down in favour of a comprehensive further away doesn't that mean they'd be ineligible for assisted travel to get to/from school?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Being politically against the idea of grammar schools and private schools doesn't make you a hypocrite for using them. I've never understood the argument. But then people in that position can't win: use them and you're a hypocrite, don't use them and it's the "politics of envy". It's no different to avowed libertarians gladly accepting an NHS ambulance and treatment when they have a heart attack.

Corbyn and UKIP are both speaking to the same angry disenfranchised people, something that neither the Tories nor the right of Labour are doing. The only real difference between the anger driving Corbynism and the anger driving the kippers is a question of whom they blame. If you blame the bankers and the fat cats go to Corbyn, if you blame the forrins go to UKIP. The problem is that it isn't the angry and disenfranchised who decide general elections, it's the middle class Middle Englanders, and it has been a long time since Labour coherently spoke to those people.