|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 13 2016 16:09 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 08:42 kollin wrote:
The electable argument is so overstated good lord, the anyone-but-Corbyn side of the party have actually managed to back someone less charismatic, less likeable, and less principled than Corbyn who will be an utter disaster in an election. Maybe Corbyn will be too, but considering Labour lost the past 2 general elections on a more right wing platform maybe the change might be positive. And if it isn't positive and ends in disaster, maybe the problem isn't as simple as who is leader! Just because they're both unelectable doesn't mean the unelectable argument is overstated. They are suffering from their own progressivism, trying to pretend that somebody like Ed Miliband or Angela Eagle can lead - with absolutely no leadership qualities.
But if there's no viable alternative - and one certainly hasn't been presented - then Labour may as well follow the wishes of its membership and at least lose on a platform that might drag the Conservatives slightly to the left.
|
On July 13 2016 17:09 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 16:09 bardtown wrote:On July 13 2016 08:42 kollin wrote:
The electable argument is so overstated good lord, the anyone-but-Corbyn side of the party have actually managed to back someone less charismatic, less likeable, and less principled than Corbyn who will be an utter disaster in an election. Maybe Corbyn will be too, but considering Labour lost the past 2 general elections on a more right wing platform maybe the change might be positive. And if it isn't positive and ends in disaster, maybe the problem isn't as simple as who is leader! Just because they're both unelectable doesn't mean the unelectable argument is overstated. They are suffering from their own progressivism, trying to pretend that somebody like Ed Miliband or Angela Eagle can lead - with absolutely no leadership qualities. But if there's no viable alternative - and one certainly hasn't been presented - then Labour may as well follow the wishes of its membership and at least lose on a platform that might drag the Conservatives slightly to the left.
I think there's a feeling among MPs that he ignores/disrespects them, and that he is unable to compromise to find middle ground with them. You don't get the majority of the cabinet resigning for no reason. If the party members reinstate him then a new centrist party is a real possibility, consisting of the majority of the current Labour party and possibly a few tories/lib dems.
|
On July 13 2016 17:48 bardtown wrote:
If the party members reinstate him then a new centrist party is a real possibility, consisting of the majority of the current Labour party and possibly a few tories/lib dems.
And I think that would be a good thing. More parties == more democracy. You dont want to end like the pretend democracy they use in the US.
|
On July 13 2016 18:06 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 17:48 bardtown wrote:
If the party members reinstate him then a new centrist party is a real possibility, consisting of the majority of the current Labour party and possibly a few tories/lib dems. And I think that would be a good thing. More parties == more democracy. You dont want to end like the pretend democracy they use in the US.
Well, Labour would end up as a fringe party, like UKIP, in that scenario. Which is fine; voters move to the fringes when they are disenfranchised by the mainstream parties which forces the mainstream parties to respond if they want to keep a majority.
|
United States42884 Posts
On July 13 2016 18:06 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 17:48 bardtown wrote:
If the party members reinstate him then a new centrist party is a real possibility, consisting of the majority of the current Labour party and possibly a few tories/lib dems. And I think that would be a good thing. More parties == more democracy. You dont want to end like the pretend democracy they use in the US.
In a FPTP system more parties == less democracy. You win a constituency with a plurality of votes, not a majority. The more parties, the more split the votes, the more votes are ignored and the fewer votes are needed to carry the constituency.
|
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo.
|
United States42884 Posts
I don't think May has half the electability of Cameron. Cameron could have taken a third term imo and his fall from power casts the entire country adrift politically. If Labour had any kind of opposition at all they would be tearing the Tories apart right now, their implosion has led the country without a working opposition to hold the government to account. It's probably time to just give up and join Scotland.
|
On July 14 2016 01:10 Faggatron wrote:
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo.
My friend, you are the problem, not the Labour 'rebels'. You say Miliband was unelectable - and you're right - but you neglect to mention that Corbyn is even worse.
He's less popular than Trump or Clinton, the two most unpopular US presidential candidates of all time.
The Labour party has been hijacked by communist bullies and radical students. If you think the electorate would ever countenance this then you are severely deluded. Also, it was not the PLP that gave you Ed, but the exact same people who gave you Corbyn: the unions. If we'd had David instead of Ed, we'd be in a very, very different position.
|
On July 14 2016 02:02 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 01:10 Faggatron wrote:
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo. My friend, you are the problem, not the Labour 'rebels'. You say Miliband was unelectable - and you're right - but you neglect to mention that Corbyn is even worse. https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/753195848469798912He's less popular than Trump or Clinton, the two most unpopular US presidential candidates of all time. The Labour party has been hijacked by communist bullies and radical students. If you think the electorate would ever countenance this then you are severely deluded. Also, it was not the PLP that gave you Ed, but the exact same people who gave you Corbyn: the unions. If we'd had David instead of Ed, we'd be in a very, very different position.
The unions didn't 'give us' Corbyn due to the voting reforms pushed through by Miliband. How electable someone is doesn't matter if neither of them will get elected anyway, and what the PLP has done is choose to mount a coup at the worst possible moment they could have chosen, with a pro-Iraq, anti-austerity candidate even less likeable than Corbyn in lieu of doing their jobs and opposing the Conservatives.
The PLP seem to be absolutely disconnected from reality, and so are you if you believe David Miliband would have held on to Scotland, or made any significant headway in England. Corbyn won the leadership election under the rules pushed for after Ed won the leadership - so overwhelmingly the PLP are resorting to preventing as many of the members voting as they believe they can get away with. I do not believe the membership of Labour are so deluded they would vote for Corbyn over another candidate without the same abysmal voting record as Eagle, even if they weren't so left-wing. But unfortunately that candidate doesn't exist, and it would seem quite reasonably Labour's members would rather lose on the platform of their choosing than see the party dragged towards the right once again.
|
On July 14 2016 03:15 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 02:02 bardtown wrote:On July 14 2016 01:10 Faggatron wrote:
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo. My friend, you are the problem, not the Labour 'rebels'. You say Miliband was unelectable - and you're right - but you neglect to mention that Corbyn is even worse. https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/753195848469798912He's less popular than Trump or Clinton, the two most unpopular US presidential candidates of all time. The Labour party has been hijacked by communist bullies and radical students. If you think the electorate would ever countenance this then you are severely deluded. Also, it was not the PLP that gave you Ed, but the exact same people who gave you Corbyn: the unions. If we'd had David instead of Ed, we'd be in a very, very different position. The unions didn't 'give us' Corbyn due to the voting reforms pushed through by Miliband. How electable someone is doesn't matter if neither of them will get elected anyway, and what the PLP has done is choose to mount a coup at the worst possible moment they could have chosen, with a pro-Iraq, anti-austerity candidate even less likeable than Corbyn in lieu of doing their jobs and opposing the Conservatives. The PLP seem to be absolutely disconnected from reality, and so are you if you believe David Miliband would have held on to Scotland, or made any significant headway in England. Corbyn won the leadership election under the rules pushed for after Ed won the leadership - so overwhelmingly the PLP are resorting to preventing as many of the members voting as they believe they can get away with. I do not believe the membership of Labour are so deluded they would vote for Corbyn over another candidate without the same abysmal voting record as Eagle, even if they weren't so left-wing. But unfortunately that candidate doesn't exist, and it would seem quite reasonably Labour's members would rather lose on the platform of their choosing than see the party dragged towards the right once again.
That candidate has already put his name in and I wouldn't be surprised if Eagle steps down before the end of the week. He's not perfect, but he's what you're asking for.
|
On July 13 2016 04:04 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:52 RvB wrote:On July 13 2016 02:28 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 20:51 RvB wrote:On July 12 2016 07:48 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation. Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round. Letting party members vote isn't more democratic. It's oligarchic. Only party members are allowed to vote. Even when you're free to sign up (for a cost) like labour it's not democratic. At least mp's have a democratic mandate from all the conservative voters. I think you need to learn what oligarchic really means. In this case, it's not. Every party needs to decide who their leader should be. That should be decided by party members. No ifs, no buts. Choosing the next PM, in absence of general election, is a separate problem. Edit: Anything else is just unreasonable. Do you not see how opposition can vote for the weakest candidate? Tactical voting is still popular. Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. In this case the small number of people are the labour members. The party represents all their voters not just its members. This is how someone like Corbyn gets elected who represents party members but not a significant part of the voters at all. I'd just let MPs decide. You're letting a select few people decide yes but at least they have a democratic mandate. Either that or everyone who voted labour gets a ballot to vote or something. You talk about oligarchy, but you fail to realise that letting only MPs decide is bigger oligarchy than party members. I don't think party members being able to decide is oligarchy. I said why. Opposition can abuse that. Let party itself decide who their leader is. Then, if voters don't like that leader, they vote for another party with a better leader. It's basic democracy. You get punished if you don't represent voters. Also, when I vote for an MP I usually vote for THEIR POLICY not their opinion on who the next PM/party leader should be. That's something I've not given them a mandate for. That's in general not British politics.
Just wanted to respond one more time to make my poin clear.
Letting MPs decide is not more oligarchic for one simple reason. They have a democratic mandate from their voters (the thing that makes a representative democracy a democracy you know). MPs jobs depend on their party leader and they're a direct stakeholder. They're also the ones who can be held accountable by the voters. Party members have none of that.
MPs should know their constituency best and based on how they think they can get the most votes they will decide a party leader. This way it's possible to get a party leader who represents the most amount of people.
|
On July 14 2016 01:10 Faggatron wrote:
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo.
I would somewhat agree, they are traitors to the historic (and current again) Labour party, and they should split, because a Labour which wants to go back to the way it used to be isn't fit to be the main opposition party, and we need a more centrist party which can actually challenge the Tories rather than being seen as a somewhat more extreme counterpoint which is unelectable.
The Labour MPs want to be in a party which gets elected. That isn't the Labour party as it is now. If they can't force the Labour party to re-adapt itself and become an alternative option again, they should break away and form a new party.
|
On July 14 2016 03:38 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 04:04 Shield wrote:On July 13 2016 03:52 RvB wrote:On July 13 2016 02:28 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 20:51 RvB wrote:On July 12 2016 07:48 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation. Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round. Letting party members vote isn't more democratic. It's oligarchic. Only party members are allowed to vote. Even when you're free to sign up (for a cost) like labour it's not democratic. At least mp's have a democratic mandate from all the conservative voters. I think you need to learn what oligarchic really means. In this case, it's not. Every party needs to decide who their leader should be. That should be decided by party members. No ifs, no buts. Choosing the next PM, in absence of general election, is a separate problem. Edit: Anything else is just unreasonable. Do you not see how opposition can vote for the weakest candidate? Tactical voting is still popular. Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. In this case the small number of people are the labour members. The party represents all their voters not just its members. This is how someone like Corbyn gets elected who represents party members but not a significant part of the voters at all. I'd just let MPs decide. You're letting a select few people decide yes but at least they have a democratic mandate. Either that or everyone who voted labour gets a ballot to vote or something. You talk about oligarchy, but you fail to realise that letting only MPs decide is bigger oligarchy than party members. I don't think party members being able to decide is oligarchy. I said why. Opposition can abuse that. Let party itself decide who their leader is. Then, if voters don't like that leader, they vote for another party with a better leader. It's basic democracy. You get punished if you don't represent voters. Also, when I vote for an MP I usually vote for THEIR POLICY not their opinion on who the next PM/party leader should be. That's something I've not given them a mandate for. That's in general not British politics. Just wanted to respond one more time to make my poin clear. Letting MPs decide is not more oligarchic for one simple reason. They have a democratic mandate from their voters (the thing that makes a representative democracy a democracy you know). MPs jobs depend on their party leader and they're a direct stakeholder. They're also the ones who can be held accountable by the voters. Party members have none of that. MPs should know their constituency best and based on how they think they can get the most votes they will decide a party leader. This way it's possible to get a party leader who represents the most amount of people.
That's basically what I said on the previous page. The problem is the Party membership doesn't want that, they want their own party, which is reasonable. The two cannot co-exist, so something needs to give.
|
Phew!
Just when Britain was starting to become a laughing stock around the world, Boris Johnson was appointed foreign secretary, lol.
|
On July 14 2016 04:03 Reaps wrote:
Phew!
Just when Britain was starting to become a laughing stock around the world, Boris Johnson was appointed foreign secretary, lol.
This will show the others! Nobody will dare to laugh at Britain now! NOBODY!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
So Big B is now the Foreign Secretary. So where does he go to first France, or the United States.
|
On July 14 2016 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Big B is now the Foreign Secretary. So where does he go to first France, or the United States.
China.
![[image loading]](http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2373252.ece/ALTERNATES/s1023/Boris-Johnson.jpg)
|
United States42884 Posts
On July 14 2016 03:55 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 01:10 Faggatron wrote:
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo. I would somewhat agree, they are traitors to the historic (and current again) Labour party, and they should split, because a Labour which wants to go back to the way it used to be isn't fit to be the main opposition party, and we need a more centrist party which can actually challenge the Tories rather than being seen as a somewhat more extreme counterpoint which is unelectable. The Labour MPs want to be in a party which gets elected. That isn't the Labour party as it is now. If they can't force the Labour party to re-adapt itself and become an alternative option again, they should break away and form a new party.
The wheel turns, nothing is ever new. This is Michael Foot and the Gang of Four all over again. At this point the Lib Dems might as well rejoin Labour.
|
Now we just need Trump as the next US president and that tweet would be 100% legit.
|
On July 14 2016 03:29 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 03:15 kollin wrote:On July 14 2016 02:02 bardtown wrote:On July 14 2016 01:10 Faggatron wrote:
Yes FPTP is terrible. As a Corbyn supporter I see it as follows:
After this attempted coup these assholes have essentially already condemned us to more tory victories.
Either corbyn loses and we very likely end up with tories anyway. The best hope being that the right wing of the labour party pretend to still go along with corbyns ideas, when in reality they'll go back to their old tory lite ways. (Laughable that they're all claiming to be anti austerity now).
Or, Corbyn wins, parties split, tories still win but at least there's someone with the correct (imo) policy positions at the helm.
The traitors have no coherent vision, nothing inspirational, just empty buzzwords like real leadership. That coming from the people who gave us the supremely electable ed milliband. For too long they've counted on the fact that the left has nowhere else to turn and under FPTP they are forced to vote for them. If the parties split then maybe they'll actually want a less shit electoral system and it might actually happen.
The worst scenario is that corbyn wins and the coup people stay around and keep throwing tantrums, continually undermining him whilst digging themselves even deeper. Imagine another year of this. If he wins they need to stfu or gtfo. My friend, you are the problem, not the Labour 'rebels'. You say Miliband was unelectable - and you're right - but you neglect to mention that Corbyn is even worse. https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/753195848469798912He's less popular than Trump or Clinton, the two most unpopular US presidential candidates of all time. The Labour party has been hijacked by communist bullies and radical students. If you think the electorate would ever countenance this then you are severely deluded. Also, it was not the PLP that gave you Ed, but the exact same people who gave you Corbyn: the unions. If we'd had David instead of Ed, we'd be in a very, very different position. The unions didn't 'give us' Corbyn due to the voting reforms pushed through by Miliband. How electable someone is doesn't matter if neither of them will get elected anyway, and what the PLP has done is choose to mount a coup at the worst possible moment they could have chosen, with a pro-Iraq, anti-austerity candidate even less likeable than Corbyn in lieu of doing their jobs and opposing the Conservatives. The PLP seem to be absolutely disconnected from reality, and so are you if you believe David Miliband would have held on to Scotland, or made any significant headway in England. Corbyn won the leadership election under the rules pushed for after Ed won the leadership - so overwhelmingly the PLP are resorting to preventing as many of the members voting as they believe they can get away with. I do not believe the membership of Labour are so deluded they would vote for Corbyn over another candidate without the same abysmal voting record as Eagle, even if they weren't so left-wing. But unfortunately that candidate doesn't exist, and it would seem quite reasonably Labour's members would rather lose on the platform of their choosing than see the party dragged towards the right once again. That candidate has already put his name in and I wouldn't be surprised if Eagle steps down before the end of the week. He's not perfect, but he's what you're asking for.
On this we're agreed, I hope to god Owen Smith can win the leadership battle. I'm still skeptical whether or not Labour can get elected, but at least it might unite the party so they can fucking do something
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
