Kevin Carr's Gloves 3743 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 If only Labour had a leader like Nicola Sturgeon or a young Mahri Black type coming through You mean someone who didn't study PPE at Oxford? What a ridiculous notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20621 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Labour members have to pay £25 to vote Wtf That's labour supporters I believe, not members. Should mean only genuine people with an invested interest get to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20621 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 It does look like the Labour Party as we know it has imploded, possibly for good. This isn't necessarily the worst thing. A broad alliance of progressive parties could form a coalition government in the next election if the Tories fail to win a majority. Labour, in whatever form it fractures into, getting into bed with the Lib Dems and the SNP. The Tories could lose ground to UKIP if we do end up with Brexit lite, or a second referendum. I'm wondering if the bulk of parliamentary labour moved to join with the LDs with mandate for PR would it be feasible to change politics forever? Be interested in Meenzer's view. The lack of a clear strong leader seems to be the biggest stumbling block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43266 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 There's gonna be a 2 day window for people to join and still be able to vote but they'll have to pay 25 quid for the pleasure. To be fair I don't think it's a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 43266 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 A story that has received limited coverage btw: publication of a US congressional report has revealed that George Osborne personally intervened on behalf of HSBC when the US were considering sanctions against the bank for money laundering on behalf of terrorists and drug dealers. Consequently HSBC avoided criminal prosecution and were able to get away with just paying a fine. As McDonnell has pointed out, "it is hard to envisage circumstances where the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be using his office to interfere in a criminal investigation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5131 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Agreed, it's not. Anyone interested in the future of the Labour party should have been well invested by now anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34298 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 I'm wondering if the bulk of parliamentary labour moved to join with the LDs with mandate for PR would it be feasible to change politics forever? Be interested in Meenzer's view. The lack of a clear strong leader seems to be the biggest stumbling block. I would vote for that and have spoken to a few people who think it's a good idea. Because without a change in the voting system I think it's essentially just more of the same with the elite governing in their own interests. I'm not expecting some sort of socialist utopia (just thought I'd knock-down CT's strawman before he builds it) but I really think we need to get away from the mess you get when a load of posh cunts with very little, comparatively, to lose play political games with the country's future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4544 Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 I'm wondering if the bulk of parliamentary labour moved to join with the LDs with mandate for PR would it be feasible to change politics forever? Be interested in Meenzer's view. The lack of a clear strong leader seems to be the biggest stumbling block. It's a numbers game though. Libs only have 8 mp's and labour are due to lose at least 16 mp's before the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6901 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 That's labour supporters I believe, not members. Should mean only genuine people with an invested interest get to vote. Ah right, that does make more sense then. Although a kick in the teeth for members who joined in the last 6 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4283 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Ah right, that does make more sense then. Although a kick in the teeth for members who joined in the last 6 months A kick in the teeth that might be tested in the courts as breach of contract. I'm all for PR but I don't like the idea of all those MPs suddenly saying "I'm not Labour any more, I'm Super Duper Middle Ground Party" without having the guts to have a bye election.. I'm sure they think if there is a split its them that will keep the name and Corbyn et al will be forced to call themselves something else but since I reckon the latter would still win seats, if they think they'd get power under FPTP they're dreaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34298 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 A kick in the teeth that might be tested in the courts as breach of contract. I'm all for PR but I don't like the idea of all those MPs suddenly saying "I'm not Labour any more, I'm Super Duper Middle Ground Party" without having the guts to have a bye election.. I'm sure they think if there is a split its them that will keep the name and Corbyn et al will be forced to call themselves something else but since I reckon the latter would still win seats, if they think they'd get power under FPTP they're dreaming. I agree with you fwiw. I'd be very sad about the dissolution of the Labour party too. I have some sympathy with Corbyn as well. He was elected within the rules and has tried to do his job whilst being undermined from the off. If he hadn't been, then who knows? I don't think he's leadership material though and that's his biggest issue. He seems in equal parts unwilling and unabale to get his message across to the masses. I also question what he hopes to achieve from his stance. Surely he can see where this might all lead. It would be bad enough to have a large minority of the PLP out to get him but he has the support of what? 15% of them. His position is completely untenable. I heard a Labour activist on the TV saying she thought he was a vindictive man set on destroying the Labour Party. Even if that's a bit tin foil hat does it really matter if that's the end result of his clinging on? Mind, having said all that, nothing is going to significantly change for the better without a proper shake-up in UK politics and I think that needs PR. If this is what it takes then perhaps some good will come out of this horrible fucking mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20621 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 A kick in the teeth that might be tested in the courts as breach of contract. I'm all for PR but I don't like the idea of all those MPs suddenly saying "I'm not Labour any more, I'm Super Duper Middle Ground Party" without having the guts to have a bye election.. I'm sure they think if there is a split its them that will keep the name and Corbyn et al will be forced to call themselves something else but since I reckon the latter would still win seats, if they think they'd get power under FPTP they're dreaming. I'd expect Corbyn to keep the name. As for the idea of having 172 simultaneous by elections, don't be daft, the next GE will determine the fate of the parties. I think the idea of a LD new labour merger with PR would be appealing to many people. I think it's old labour who'd be decimated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4544 Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 At the end of the day, conservatives have this sewn up til at least 2025. That gives a new party 9 years to get its act together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34298 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 You've not made a wrong call on this stuff yet, CT, so that puts that one to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4544 Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 Btw, there's an old chap at Parliament green in the background of all the news channels. He's carrying a placard and his little dog has a sandwich board on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4544 Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 You've not made a wrong call on this stuff yet, CT, so that puts that one to bed. True. 2 general elections and a referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34298 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) Cameron still PM as well. Also, I think you may be confusing voting for the winning side with making a correct predicition. Edited July 13, 2016 by Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21581 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 not forgetting business as usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29820 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 I agree with you fwiw. I'd be very sad about the dissolution of the Labour party too. I have some sympathy with Corbyn as well. He was elected within the rules and has tried to do his job whilst being undermined from the off. If he hadn't been, then who knows? I don't think he's leadership material though and that's his biggest issue. He seems in equal parts unwilling and unabale to get his message across to the masses. I also question what he hopes to achieve from his stance. Surely he can see where this might all lead. It would be bad enough to have a large minority of the PLP out to get him but he has the support of what? 15% of them. His position is completely untenable. I heard a Labour activist on the TV saying she thought he was a vindictive man set on destroying the Labour Party. Even if that's a bit tin foil hat does it really matter if that's the end result of his clinging on? Mind, having said all that, nothing is going to significantly change for the better without a proper shake-up in UK politics and I think that needs PR. If this is what it takes then perhaps some good will come out of this horrible fucking mess Corbyn and McDonnell have already as good as admitted that they'll see the party split before they walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4544 Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 Cameron still PM as well. Also, I think you may be confusing voting for the winning side with making a correct predicition. This ones not bad from a year ago today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4544 Posted July 13, 2016 Author Share Posted July 13, 2016 not forgetting business as usual Let's keep that to the EU thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4283 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 I agree with you fwiw. I'd be very sad about the dissolution of the Labour party too. I have some sympathy with Corbyn as well. He was elected within the rules and has tried to do his job whilst being undermined from the off. If he hadn't been, then who knows? I don't think he's leadership material though and that's his biggest issue. He seems in equal parts unwilling and unabale to get his message across to the masses. I also question what he hopes to achieve from his stance. Surely he can see where this might all lead. It would be bad enough to have a large minority of the PLP out to get him but he has the support of what? 15% of them. His position is completely untenable. I heard a Labour activist on the TV saying she thought he was a vindictive man set on destroying the Labour Party. Even if that's a bit tin foil hat does it really matter if that's the end result of his clinging on? Mind, having said all that, nothing is going to significantly change for the better without a proper shake-up in UK politics and I think that needs PR. If this is what it takes then perhaps some good will come out of this horrible fucking mess I recognise the style/electibility problems but I think the main problem they have is policy and that's why a split is in some ways more honest. If Corbyn had turned out to be a good "salesman", people like Eagle and Benn would have still been very unhappy as a lot of the post Blair intake as we've suggested are centrist at best. Idealistically I'd hoped that Corbyn would have had an effect (still to be realised) similar to Bernie Sanders for the democrats where a left wing/socialist has engaged young/disaffected voters and though ultimately failing, he has "forced" Clinton to at least try and adopt some of his policies - as I said not fully realised. My hope would be that pushing his agenda would at least have the affect of some accomodation of some kind within an electable framework - for example dropping acceptance of austerity. I think the reason why he's proved so damn stubborn in not falling on his sword now is that he's realised that the backstabbers are intransigent "New Labour" and any chance of adopting policies which are actually popular like rail nationalisation would be lost under someone like Eagle or any other of that ilk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29820 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 I think the reason why he's proved so damn stubborn in not falling on his sword now is that he's realised that the backstabbers are intransigent "New Labour" and any chance of adopting policies which are actually popular like rail nationalisation would be lost under someone like Eagle or any other of that ilk. Wasn't he offered a deal whereby Eagle would retain certain policy proposals in return for him stepping aside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34298 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 I recognise the style/electibility problems but I think the main problem they have is policy and that's why a split is in some ways more honest. If Corbyn had turned out to be a good "salesman", people like Eagle and Benn would have still been very unhappy as a lot of the post Blair intake as we've suggested are centrist at best. Idealistically I'd hoped that Corbyn would have had an effect (still to be realised) similar to Bernie Sanders for the democrats where a left wing/socialist has engaged young/disaffected voters and though ultimately failing, he has "forced" Clinton to at least try and adopt some of his policies - as I said not fully realised. My hope would be that pushing his agenda would at least have the affect of some accomodation of some kind within an electable framework - for example dropping acceptance of austerity. I think the reason why he's proved so damn stubborn in not falling on his sword now is that he's realised that the backstabbers are intransigent "New Labour" and any chance of adopting policies which are actually popular like rail nationalisation would be lost under someone like Eagle or any other of that ilk. I think that analysis is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4283 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Wasn't he offered a deal whereby Eagle would retain certain policy proposals in return for him stepping aside? I don't know but a) I wouldn't trust her/them and what's the point of a leader or indeed PLP that don't believe in anything vaguely left wing and have to have if "forced" upon them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now